Talent as a Genetic Gift

[Edwardt]

Hi, David, the comment regarding family dynasties in the Arts (Barrymore, Baldwin, etc.) was somewhat tongue in cheek, but it did start me to wondering about the prevalence of children who follow their parents into the Arts. You've spoken in the past about your mother being a singer, opera, I believe. Did your sons show early signs of an inclination towards music or was this something you helped foster and encouraged? I guess what I find interesting is the whole question of nature vs. nuture. Do you have any degree of trepidation about them getting involved in the music industry, which is, as you obviously know, often considered harsh? Or the film industry, which may be considered even harsher? Is your daughter artistically inclined, or will she be going down a different path in life?
Thanks, and hope all is well,
Ed T.

[Edwardt]

Sorry to be redundant; your daughter is a dancer and obviously that's artistic. I guess I was wondering if she intends to be visible, as your sons are, are whether she'd opt to stay out of the limelight, like the Osborne daughter that never wants to be on TV (not that I in any way intend to equate the Hess family with the Osbornes, although I always was a fan of Ozzy and Black Sabbath in my younger days). Now that I've asked the question, I'm reminded constantly of families that can well be considered artistic dynasties (The Fondas, the Douglases, etc.). In some of them, the children can end up surpassing their parents (Jane Fonda-Henry Fonda...although some may argue this point). In others, they don't (Michael Douglas-Kirk Douglas). Anyway, just was curious.
Thanks,
Ed T.

[Tard]

Without disrespecting either the parent or sibling, believe there's a bit of nepotism within ANY career-choice.

My father designs AutoCAD military weaponry circuitboards. Last bit of info I could get out of him was almost a decade ago, some directional microwave-weapon schematics (yea, it's lots of classified material he can't mention to family members (like me! I'd LOVE spilling the beans on weird shit like that!!!!)) I work visually, as he does, but he's mechanically-visual, and I'm more organic. So nepotism can easily cross certain lines without being seen as a 'handout' to the offspring.

Sorry, I'm babbling again.... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Edwardt]

Jane over Henry? Maybe not...although I was never a great Henry Fonda fan, and Jane in her younger years was certainly easier on the eyes. I saw an interview once with Robert Duvall where they asked him about "The Grapes of Wrath" and his opinion of the film. It was negative. Duvall knew Okies and said they were completely unlike the characters portrayed in the film. Of course, realism was never a staple of films during that period (which is why the gritty performances of someone like Cagney stand out all these years later), but you could make the point that Jane is a far more naturalistic actor than Henry. I'm not denegrating Henry; certainly, he was a great movie star and was in many films that have stood the test of time. Also, I wasn't necessarily making a point against nepotism. It's just that sometimes it's that much harder for children of acclaimed actors and/or musicians as everything they do or accomplish is going to be measured against what their parent did. If you love what you're doing, maybe this isn't so important. On the other hand, I imagine it can be a source of great frustration for the child. I can't really speak from experience, as I don't have children and I've never been an acclaimed (or unacclaimed, for the matter) actor or musician.
Ed T.

[Tard]

Wonders how Nicholas Cage would have done, acting movie-wise, if Francis Ford Coppola wasn't a relation?

[JundtHeald]

Or Sofia Coppola! I am the only person in the world that hated Lost in Translation.

[Tard]

Never seen it. (Is that a viewpoint about my thoughts of the movie?)

[JundtHeald]

Jane Fonda over Henry Fonda???????

[Edwardt]

I didn't see "Lost in Translation" or "The Virgin Suicides" but I am sort of glad to see Sofia Coppola get some artistic validation by the critics after being raked over the coals for "Godfather 3". The critical slant seemed to be that she was somehow responsible for how thoroughly mediocre that film was, certainly in comparison with its top-quality predecessors. That to me was grossly unfair. She wasn't a great actress, but it was a poorly made, improbably scripted movie that never should have been made. Francis Coppola openly admitted that he had said everything he needed to say regarding the story with "Godfather 2" and that he made nbr 3 strictly for the money. It shows. But to blame Sofia for its failure is nothing if not disingenuous. Even Winona Ryder couldn't have saved that script. As to Nicholas, I thought he did an excellent acting job in "Leaving Las Vegas." Unfortunately, he's seemed to be content since then to rely on his "quirky" persona. It's entertaining on occasion, but he's obviously capable of so much more. At least I think so.
Ed T.

[Edwardt]

As an afterthought, those who'd like to know more regarding Method acting and some of the things that took place behind the scenes during the making of "The Godfather" should read a book by Ardell Sheridan-Castellano entitled "Divine Intervention and a Dash of Magic" published by Trafford. Ms. Sheridan-Castellano is the widow of Richard Castellano, the actor who played Clemenza in the movie, and I found this a fascinating read. Also, on a more personal note, she dedicated the book to a friend of mine and personally inscribed my copy. It's well worth the effort invested to obtain a copy.
Ed T.