disinterred
Posted: 01 April 2014 07:22 PM   [ Ignore ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3149
Joined  2007-02-26

In the Bones episode titled The Witch in the Wardrobe, Dr Brennan says, “I’ve seen this before in disinterred bodies because of the copper hardware on coffins.”

She pronounces the word disinterred as /dɪsˈɪn tər/ rather than /ˌdɪs ɪnˈtɜr/. That is to say, she placed the stress on the second syllable.

I have not heard this form before. Is this a regional variant? If not then perhaps the actor, director, editor etc may have been unfamiliar with the word, which would be a bit embarrassing given the subject matter of the show.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2014 07:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2860
Joined  2007-01-31

I’ve noticed them bungling the pronunciation of technical and scientific terms before, but I wouldn’t have thought disinterred is that technical.  I’ve never heard that pronunciation before, and none of the dictionaries I checked list it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2014 09:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  710
Joined  2007-02-07

If not then perhaps the actor, director, editor etc may have been unfamiliar with the word, which would be a bit embarrassing given the subject matter of the show.

I’ve been on lots of sets as a sound technician and I think you’re making a lot of incorrect assumptions. The only people on a show that need to know anything about the subject matter are the writers. Everyone else is working off their script.

Most actors I know would laugh in your face and tell you that it’s an insult to their acting ability if you believe they need to know something about the subject matter to deliver a convincing performance. Forget “method acting” bullshit, TV shows are a grind and coming in on time and in budget is all that matters. You don’t like the way a word was stressed? Tell that to the director and he’ll tell you to quit bothering him.

It’s very possible the Emily wasn’t familiar with the word, or even consciously decided that the word needed emphasis in the scene and pulled the odd emphasis out of her hat and there it was. Or it could have been take fifteen and the director was just glad no one tripped.

Lots of people involved in the production may have noticed the odd pronunciation and just didn’t care. It is, after all, a trivial thing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2014 10:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2032
Joined  2007-02-19

This thread irresistibly calls to mind the story of the two brothers who drowned in a sewer. They’re interred together.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2014 04:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3149
Joined  2007-02-26
happydog - 01 April 2014 09:23 PM

If not then perhaps the actor, director, editor etc may have been unfamiliar with the word, which would be a bit embarrassing given the subject matter of the show.

I’ve been on lots of sets as a sound technician and I think you’re making a lot of incorrect assumptions. The only people on a show that need to know anything about the subject matter are the writers. Everyone else is working off their script.

Most actors I know would laugh in your face and tell you that it’s an insult to their acting ability if you believe they need to know something about the subject matter to deliver a convincing performance. Forget “method acting” bullshit, TV shows are a grind and coming in on time and in budget is all that matters. You don’t like the way a word was stressed? Tell that to the director and he’ll tell you to quit bothering him.

It’s very possible the Emily wasn’t familiar with the word, or even consciously decided that the word needed emphasis in the scene and pulled the odd emphasis out of her hat and there it was. Or it could have been take fifteen and the director was just glad no one tripped.

Lots of people involved in the production may have noticed the odd pronunciation and just didn’t care. It is, after all, a trivial thing.

I don’t agree. The absurdity of this kind of thing distracts the viewer. In some way they have to suspend disbelief and for approx 40 mins plus ads, and pretend that these people are forensic scientists, and if they drop clangers that draw attention to the fact that they know less about the topic than the average person, it breaks the spell.

EDIT: added a comma and the word “and”

[ Edited: 02 April 2014 04:37 PM by OP Tipping ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2014 04:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3537
Joined  2007-01-29

I disagree too.  You might as well call the theater “a trivial thing.” Are you seriously saying it wouldn’t matter whether an actor knew what “wherefore” meant in “Wherefore art thou Romeo?”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2014 05:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4809
Joined  2007-01-03

Most actors I know would laugh in your face and tell you that it’s an insult to their acting ability if you believe they need to know something about the subject matter to deliver a convincing performance.

It’s a common practice for actors, even those who do not use the “method,” to research their roles. If they are playing the part of a police officer, for instance, they’ll spend time in police stations and cop bars and take some “ride-alongs” in patrol cars. I’ve heard some actors say that when portraying a living, historical person, they don’t want to meet them because then they might end up thinking “what would he think of my performance,” but that doesn’t mean they don’t research the character’s life as thoroughly as they are able in other ways.

That is a good point, though, about the pace of television production and the primacy of budget. It really is a grind. (A feature film produces about two hours of edited footage from about nine weeks of principal photography; a TV show produces forty-two minutes from just one.) Attitudes toward maintaining verisimilitude vary from production to production. Some go to great lengths to keep everything accurate, others care much less. And if running behind schedule, even the most fastidious show will let things slide.

Two other possible explanations for this particular (mis)pronunciation: 1) no one noticed and it just slipped by; 2) Emily Deschanel, the actor, did it deliberately to cultivate the air that Dr. Brennan, the character, is detached and non-social, learning her words from books rather than conversation. It’s been a while since I’ve watched the show, but I recall that her speech patterns are quite deliberately off.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2014 07:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  218
Joined  2013-10-14

That is a good point, though, about the pace of television production and the primacy of budget. It really is a grind. (A feature film produces about two hours of edited footage from about nine weeks of principal photography; a TV show produces forty-two minutes from just one.) Attitudes toward maintaining verisimilitude vary from production to production. Some go to great lengths to keep everything accurate, others care much less. And if running behind schedule, even the most fastidious show will let things slide.

Two other possible explanations for this particular (mis)pronunciation: 1) no one noticed and it just slipped by; 2) Emily Deschanel, the actor, did it deliberately to cultivate the air that Dr. Brennan, the character, is detached and non-social, learning her words from books rather than conversation. It’s been a while since I’ve watched the show, but I recall that her speech patterns are quite deliberately off.

I’ve seen feature films, one in particular that I recall starring Roger Moore and Gene Wilder, where the boom microphone was exposed from the ceiling; since it was a comedy I thought it was an intentional device, but it wasn’t; nevertheless, it got a laugh. By the way, this is one of the most common errors in movie making.

There are countless others and many from high budget films. It seems that it’s just too costly to reshoot a scene when the scene is too crucial to edit out. One very common error in practically ninety percent of films is an actor’s position when the camera changes angle from back to front. In many instances an actor will be smoking a cigarette from a rear shot but when the camera reverses the point-of-view from back to front the cigarette mysteriously disappears.

My point being, and perhaps Happydog’s, is that an odd pronunciation might be a trivial matter for a production company that ignores the more conspicuous visual mistakes made by cinematographers.

Regardless, I too would find it difficult to take seriously a film where an actor, who is portraying a doctor, mispronounces the words of his trade.

[ Edited: 03 April 2014 09:58 PM by Logophile ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2014 03:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4809
Joined  2007-01-03

My point being, and perhaps Happydog’s, is that an odd pronunciation might be a trivial matter for a production company that ignores the more conspicuous visual mistakes made by cinematographers.

More likely such errors are the fault of the editor or the directorial assistant in charge of continuity, not the cinematographer. Intruding boom mikes can also be the result of a post-production decision to change the aspect ratio. The camera captures a lot more than you see in the final product, and the final image is cropped in editing to conform to the desired aspect ratio. The cinematographer will leave a “safe” zone around the edges of what is intended to be in the shot, providing a buffer to ensure such intrusions don’t happen, but a change in aspect ratio can destroy all the cinematographer’s planning and move things into the shot.

And reshooting can introduce its own errors. You’ll sometimes see sudden changes in an actor’s haircut, for instance, the result of different shots, filmed at different times, being edited together. So there is no perfect solution. Mistakes will happen.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2014 07:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  710
Joined  2007-02-07

I thought we were talking about a syllable of dialog in a television show.

I didn’t realize it was Shakespeare and the deserved public shaming of those responsible for that rouge syllable and the violation of trust callously perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.

Seriously.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2014 03:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4809
Joined  2007-01-03

If Shakespeare were alive today, he’d be writing for television.

(Actually, nowadays he’d probably have a YouTube channel.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2014 11:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  218
Joined  2013-10-14
Dave Wilton - 04 April 2014 03:47 AM

If Shakespeare were alive today, he’d be writing for television.

(Actually, nowadays he’d probably have a YouTube channel.)

And he would be identifiable.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2014 05:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3149
Joined  2007-02-26

It’s so weird that otherwise intelligent-seeming people share fake Shakespeare quotes on Facebook quotes all the time: boring, banal, unremarkable and unpoetic quotes that no one who ever read or heard the works of Shakespeare could ever think were Shakespearean. Why do people do this? There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of real Shakespeare quotes worth sharing.

Some people seem to log into FB and drop 50 IQ points.

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
‹‹ Cretin      Cleanse ››