|
As the backbone of Black World Studios, Sam David created a spirited, offbeat blog (below) that passes along some personal transparency, bits of professional know-how, common-sense wisdom, fascinating university research studies about actors, writers, TV personalities (and other creatives) - along with engaging do's & don'ts for nurturing and elevating exceptional talent in film, TV, radio, stage, and literary.
|
 Television shows filled with action and sound may be bad for your waistline. TV viewers ate more M&Ms, cookies, carrots and grapes while watching an excerpt from a Hollywood action film than those watching an interview program. Television has been blamed for helping Americans to gain weight because it encourages a sedentary lifestyle. But the focus of why has been on the medium and not the message. TV is like other distracting activities that can cause people to eat more, including reading, listening to the radio and interacting with dinner companions. However, little is known about whether the content or pace of the content influences how much people eat. The authors examined how objective technical characteristics, such as the frequency of visual camera cuts or variations in sound, might influence how much food is eaten. Their study, which was highlighted in a research letter, included 94 undergraduate students (57 female; mean age nearly 20 years). They gathered in groups to watch 20 minutes of TV and were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 different programs: an excerpt from "The Island," a Hollywood action movie starring Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson, the interview program "Charlie Rose," or the identical excerpt from "The Island" but with no sound. Viewers had M&Ms, cookies, carrots and grapes to snack on while watching. The snacks were weighed before and after the program to track how much viewers had eaten. Viewers watching the more distracting program "The Island," with its high camera cuts and sound variation, ate 98 percent more grams of food (206.5 vs. 104.3 g) and 65 percent more calories (354.1 vs. 214.6) than viewers who watched "Charlie Rose." Even viewers of the silent version of "The Island" ate 36 percent more grams of food (142.1 vs. 104.3g) and 46 percent more calories (314.5 vs. 214.6) than "Charlie Rose" viewers. "More distracting TV content appears to increase food consumption: action and sound variation are bad for one's diet. The more distracting a TV show, the less attention people appear to pay to eating, and the more they eat." Story Source: The JAMA Network Journals.  The world's best stand-up comedians -- household names including Kevin Hart, Amy Schumer, Jimmy Fallon, Chris Rock, Jerry Seinfield, Ricky Gervais and Eddie Murphy -- are more likely to die early than comedic and dramatic screen and stage actors, according to a landmark study. The world's best stand-up comedians -- household names including Kevin Hart, Amy Schumer, Jimmy Fallon, Chris Rock, Jerry Seinfield, Ricky Gervais and Eddie Murphy -- are more likely to die than comedic and dramatic screen and stage actors, according to a landmark study published in the International Journal of Cardiology. The study -- Is the last 'man' standing in comedy the least funny? A retrospective cohort study of elite stand-up comedians versus other entertainers -- revealed "a pattern of premature mortality in elite stand-up comedians" indicating that higher comedic standing is linked to younger age at death compared to screen comedians and so-called serious dramatic actors. This retrospective cohort study of 498 people included 200 Stand-up Comedians (13% women), 114 Comedy Actors (17.5% women), and 184 Dramatic Actors (29.3% women) listed in the top 200 in each category on popular online crowd-ranking website http://www.ranker.com. These individuals appeared in the 2015 lists 'Funniest Stand-Up Comedians of All Time', 'Funniest People of All Time' and 'Greatest Actors and Actresses in Entertainment History'. Lead researcher Professor Simon Stewart, a world-leading cardiac researcher from the Mary MacKillop Institute of Health Research at Australian Catholic University, said there was a "significant gradient in the age of death, with stand-up comedians dying at a younger age (67.1 years) than their comedy actor (68.9) and dramatic actor (70.7) counterparts." "Indeed, the data confirmed an adverse relationship between comedic ability and longevity, with elite standup comedians more highly rated by the public more likely to die prematurely," Professor Stewart said. "Overall, the results point to a need for awareness of health and wellbeing concerns in the entertainment industry, and in elite comedians in particular." "It appears that for stand-up comedians, being at the very top may be no laughing matter." The MacKillop Institute research confirmed "significantly more deaths among stand-up comedians (14 of 36 deaths -- 38.9%) categorised as 'premature' relative to population-based, life expectancy when compared to dramatic actors (11 of 56 -19.6%), with no difference when compared to comedy actors (9 of 33 deaths -- 27.3%)." And stand-up comedians experienced proportionately more non-natural deaths (7 of 36 -- 19.4%) than their comedy actor (3 of 33 -- 9.1%) and dramatic actor (6 of 56 -- 10.7%) counterparts. Of note, stand-up comedians contributed to both reported suicides and 4 of 9 drug-related deaths. "Within an international cohort of stand-up comedians spanning the last century and voted by the public as the funniest of their profession, we discovered that greater comedic ability was associated with a shorter lifespan, even after adjusting for life expectancy differences based on year of birth," he said. "Conversely, in parallel cohorts of the world's funniest comedy actors and the greatest dramatic actors, there was no evidence of premature mortality related to public-rated professional success or ability." 'Intriguing phenomenon' Professor Stewart noted how his previous study -- 'Does comedy kill? A retrospective, longitudinal cohort, nested case-control study of humour and longevity in 53 British comedians' -- had found that the funniest comedians are most at risk of premature death and reduced longevity, compared to their less funny counterparts. That finding encouraged MacKillop researchers to undertake a "more extensive and objective study of this intriguing phenomenon." "We suspected that if our original conclusions were correct, we would find that the purer and funnier the comedy art form, i.e. stand-up, the more strongly this premature death phenomenon would manifest itself," Professor Stewart said. "Specifically, we hypothesised that among stand-up comedians the inverse association between comedic ability and longevity would be both present and demonstrably stronger than observed in an equivalent cohort of comedy." Professor Stewart's latest research confirmed the hypothesis. Academy Award winners' longevity 'bias' does not apply to stand-up comedians Professor Stewart noted the widespread association between high social status and low mortality -- as evidenced in a study finding that Academy Award winners live longer -- does not extend to every occupation. "Indeed stand-up comedians don't share the 3.9-year life expectancy advantage enjoyed by Oscar-winning actors, which highlights an intriguing and as-yet-unexamined discrepancy," he said. By way of further discussion, Professor Stewart referenced an important 1993 study, which demonstrated that higher parent and teacher ratings of a child's sense of humour and cheerfulness-optimism predicted a greater likelihood of dying over seven decades. Also noted was how comedians appear to exhibit higher levels of psychotic traits (including manic-depression and schizotypal features) than non-comedians -- and at higher levels than actors. Professor Stewart's research also discusses the "demands inherent to stand-up comedy" -- a "highly competitive profession with low pay and low job security; years of working under this pressure may exert a cumulative stress effect even once success has been achieved." "In contrast, elite dramatic actors (a category that applies to the current http://www.ranker.com cohort, as well as to the Academy Award winners described earlier) are more likely to have attained some degree of financial security, with the attendant benefits to health and wellbeing," he said. Stand-ups expected to behave 'erratically' compared to more 'serious' actors Further still, "stand-up comedians and dramatic actors may also face distinct social and professional expectations." "Successful dramatic actors are often regarded as 'role models' and expected to maintain a positive public image, with managers and 'minders' invested in enforcing certain standards of behaviour that might exert a protective effect on health and longevity. This does not appear to apply to stand-up comedians, who are often expected to behave eccentrically," Professor Stewart said. "In fact, in contrast to the highly supervised environment of a film set, the nature of the comedy 'workplace' (i.e., night venues such as clubs and bars) increases exposure to and engagement in violence and risky sexual behaviour, as well as consumption of alcohol, tobacco and drugs." "Similarly, while screen actors are generally required to arrive on set early and adhere to tight schedules, thus increasing the likelihood of regular sleep patterns, stand-up comedy involves irregular and late hours and extensive travel," Professor Stewart said. "The associated difficulty in maintaining regular patterns of sleep, nutrition and exercise may contribute to detrimental physiological effects and health outcomes, including increased inflammatory markers, higher blood pressure, reduced glucose tolerance, obesity, heart disease, and mortality." In concluding remarks, Professor Stewart said: "The current results reveal a pattern of premature mortality in elite stand-up comedians, and taken together with our previous findings, indicate that higher comedic standing is linked to younger age at death. Intrapersonal factors such as personality and other psychological features that help to develop and enhance the creative talent and success of these comedians may simultaneously contribute to their reduced longevity. External or social pressures specific to stand-up comedy may also play a role." Story Source: Materials provided by Australian Catholic University. An actor acquires lines readily by focusing not on the words of the script, but on those words' meaning -- the moment-to-moment motivations of the character saying them -- as well as on the physical and emotional dimensions of their performance.  What gives actors their seemingly effortless memory capabilities? Could acting teach us something about memory and cognition, and could acting principles help those with memory problems? Researchers not only describe a learning principle that can be taught to non-actors but they have tested acting-based interventions to counter cognitive decline in older people. "How do you learn all those lines?" It is the question most asked of actors and their art. The ability to remember and effortlessly deliver large quantities of dialogue verbatim amazes non-thespians. Most people imagine that learning a script involves hours, days, and even months of rote memorization. But actors seldom work that way; in fact, they often don't consciously try to memorize lines at all. And they seldom consider memorization as defining what they do. What gives actors their seemingly effortless memory capabilities? Could acting teach us something about memory and cognition, and could acting principles help those with memory problems? These are the questions that cognitive psychologist Helga Noice (Elmhurst College) and her husband, cognitive researcher, actor, and director Tony Noice (Indiana State University) have set out to answer in nearly two decades of psychological studies of actors. The Noices have not only described a learning principle that can be taught to non-actors but they have also tested acting-based interventions to counter cognitive decline in older people. They review their research in the February issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science. According to the researchers, the secret of actors' memories is, well, acting. An actor acquires lines readily by focusing not on the words of the script, but on those words' meaning -- the moment-to-moment motivations of the character saying them -- as well as on the physical and emotional dimensions of their performance. To get inside the character, an actor will break a script down into a series of logically connected "beats" or intentions. Good actors don't think about their lines, but feel their character's intention in reaction to what the other actors do, causing their lines to come spontaneously and naturally. The researchers quote the great British actor Michael Caine: "You must be able to stand there not thinking of that line. You take it off the other actor's face." The key, the researchers have found, is a process called active experiencing, which they say uses "all physical, mental, and emotional channels to communicate the meaning of material to another person." It is a principle that can be applied off-stage as well as on. For example, students who studied material by imagining conveying its meaning to somebody else who needed the information showed higher retention than those who tried to memorize the material by rote. The active-experiencing principle was also found to be effective against cognitive decline in old age. A group of older adults who received a four-week course in acting showed significantly improved word-recall and problem-solving abilities compared to both a group that received a visual-arts course and a control group. The gains persisted four months afterward, as did a significant improvement in the seniors' perceived quality of life. Some of the Noices' findings confirm those of other researchers on memory. Memory is heavily reliant on emotion, action, and perception. In their work with actors, the Noices' have found, for example, that memory is aided by physical movement. In one study, lines learned while making an appropriate motion -- e.g., walking across a stage -- were more readily remembered by actors later than were lines unaccompanied by action. The physical motion didn't need to be repeated at the time of recall. Source: American Psychological Society  "My research indicates that women in the film industry suffer a lack of access to future career opportunities when they tend to work with people who have collaborated frequently in the past," said Mark Lutter, lead author of the study and head of the "Transnational Diffusion of Innovation" Research Group at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (MPIfG) in Germany. Titled, "Do Women Suffer from Network Closure? The Moderating Effect of Social Capital on Gender Inequality in a Project-Based Labor Market, 1929 to 2010," the study will appear in the April print issue of the American Sociological Review and was published online. For the purposes of his study, Lutter analyzed the career data, including more than a million performances in almost 400,000 movies, of about 100,000 actors and actresses in the American film industry. The data originated from the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), which contains details on all films produced since the advent of cinematography, as well as information on all of the actors and actresses involved and the networks within which they operated -- in other words, with whom they worked. Lutter found that when actresses work more often with less connected, more diverse groups featuring people from different social and cultural backgrounds, their career prospects become indistinguishable from those of actors. "The career opportunities for actresses are more likely to dwindle if they work in homogeneous teams," Lutter said. If the groups they tend to work with also feature a large proportion of men in senior positions -- directors and producers, for instance -- or if the actresses work in male-dominated film genres, the risk of career decline is even greater. The effect is further amplified for actresses still in the early stages of their careers. "I suspect that women suffer when they are frequently part of homogeneous teams because they might enjoy a much lower degree of active support from mentors than men, and their professional friendship networks might also give them access to fewer contacts in positions of power," Lutter said. "This would mean that they are likely excluded from important sources of information about future projects." This is particularly problematic in project-based labor markets, such the film industry, in which jobs tend to be obtained through informal channels and personal networks. "So rather than relying on close circles and personal friendships, women should focus on developing diverse networks of relationships outside their own circle," Lutter said. "By and large, they should take a more strategic, considered approach to their decisions concerning future projects if they want their careers to benefit." While the study focuses on the film industry, the findings have implications for people in other industries as well. "In this day and age, work very often takes place in project teams, the film industry being a prime example," Lutter said. "Those involved in filmmaking move along from project to project -- working together for a limited period of time and then going their separate ways -- like many freelancers in the creative professions, but also not unlike many people working for larger corporations. My research highlights strategies women can use to increase their visibility in these job markets, as well as steps employers interested in advancing women's careers can take when creating project teams." Story Source: American Sociological Association  A new study finds that Oscar winners in the Best Actress category are at a higher risk of divorce than nominees who do not win. By contrast, Best Actor winners do not experience an increase in the risk of divorce after an Oscar.
A long line of best actress winners including Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Halle Berry and Kate Winslet experienced the end of their marriages not long after taking home their awards. A study by researchers at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management and Carnegie Mellon University finds that Oscar winners in the Best Actress category are at a higher risk of divorce than nominees who do not win. By contrast, Best Actor winners do not experience an increase in the risk of divorce after an Oscar. "Research has shown that, in the general population, gender differences have historically given roles with greater power and status to men and roles with lesser status and power to women. Studies have demonstrated that breaching this social norm within a marriage -- for example, when a wife earns more than her husband -- can strain the relationship," says Tiziana Casciaro, an assistant professor of organizational behavior at the Rotman School, who co-authored the study with Colleen Stuart, a post-doctoral fellow at Carnegie Mellon University, and Sue Moon, a PhD student at the Rotman School. "It appears that even the marriages of Hollywood actresses at the top of their careers are not immune to the consequences of violating social norms that affect the wider population. Our results suggest that the sudden success reduces the longevity of their marriages," says Stuart. The study looked at the 751 nominees in the best actor and actress categories of the Academy Awards between1936 to 2010. The results show that Best Actress winners have a 63% chance of their marriages ending sooner than the marriages of non-winners. The median marriage duration for Best Actress winners was 4.30 years, substantially lower than the 9.51 year marriage duration for non-winners. By contrast, the difference between Best Actor non-winners (median = 12.66 years) and Best Actor winners (median = 11.97 years) was not statistically significant. Story Source: University of Toronto, Rotman School of Management.  That was the conclusion of a paper published in February 2017, in the British Journal of Psychology by Dr Niklas K. Steffens from the School of Psychology at The University of Queensland and his fellow authors. The researchers conducted a large-scale analysis of the distribution of the Academy Awards for best actor and for best actress in a leading role by the Los Angeles-based Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (i.e., the Oscars) as well as the award for best actor and for best actress in a leading role by the London-based British Academy of Film and Television Arts (i.e. the BAFTAs) since 1968. This covered a total of 908 merit prize winners, comprising 97 winners and 383 (unsuccessful) nominees for the Oscars and 97 winners and 331 (unsuccessful) nominees for the BAFTAs. Both awards state that they aim to recognise best performances in films from all over the world. The results showed that US actors dominated the awards, winning more than 50 per cent of all prizes across Oscars and BAFTAs. Nevertheless, actors were more likely to win if they shared social group membership with the judges. This meant that American actors won 52 per cent of all BAFTAs but 69 per cent of all Oscars, while British actors won 18 per cent of all Oscars but 34 per cent of all BAFTAs. Dr Steffens said: "We know a lot about the factors that increase people's capacity to show exceptional performances. However, a somewhat different question is what makes a given creative performance likely to be seen as exceptional. This was the question we addressed in this research. "These results show that whether we see a given performance as extraordinary is not just a function of the objective quality of that performance. For perceivers are much more likely to recognise a performance as truly brilliant when perceivers and performers share membership in a social group." The data also showed that nationality made a difference to actually winning an award. For the Oscars, American actors received 67 per cent of all nominations but 78 per cent of all awards. The same held true for the BAFTAs, where British actors won 31 per cent of all nominations but 42 per cent of all awards. Commenting on this pattern, Dr Steffens said: "Shared social group membership becomes even more important when the diagnostic value of a quality indicator increases -- that is, when we establish whether something is not just excellent but outstanding." In this case, American actors won two out of three of all Oscar nominations but almost four out of five of all Oscar awards." Another important determinant of success was the subject matter of the film. In the Oscars, American artists accounted for 26 per cent of award winners whose performance was in films about non-US culture but for 88 per cent of award winners whose performance was in films about American culture. Dr Steffens said: "There is a widespread belief that our perception of makes a creation original and outstanding is given by its objective qualities, but in fact it is heavily influenced by the social groups we are members of, and which provide the basis for making sense of the world."  There was a study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology General which had found that people fail to notice that White people are White. Sounds pretty ridiculous, eh? Peter Hegarty from the University of Surrey developed a celebrity guessing game in which participants were shown one of two groups of actors: Colin Firth, Kate Winslet and Jim Carey or Halle Berry, Morgan Freeman and Eddie Murphy. Players in the game made a series of guesses at what these actors had in common and generated the names of more actors to see whether they were right. Participants tried to guess the common 'rule' that these celebrities share and won the game when they did. The study found that:
"This study clearly shows one consequence of this: the failure to notice that White actors are White. Also, the guessing game is based on a process that psychologists have used to model how scientists formulate and test scientific theories for over fifty years. To the extent that this model is accurate, then these results suggest why scientists might be much quicker to label something common to Black people as race-related, than something common to White people." |
AuthorsAbout Sam Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed