- Awards
- 21
They should have somebody hit nuAlexis on top of the head with a newspaper. And she sues.
- Awards
- 14
I still think she should murder Marc Cherie (Instead of Mark Jennings) and get away with it.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 24
I just hope they keep making obscure references to Paige/Knots Landing for the fun of it. Maybe Alexis killed "Mike Sherry" (a Marc Cherry lookalike actor is hired for the flashback) several years ago when they scuffled and he landed on a receipt spindle.
- Awards
- 27
It's funny that both "Alexises" have no idea (off-screen) what their characters really are about.
- Awards
- 4
I've noticed that's a common thing for actors playing mean characters. They insist their character isn't mean when they clearly are... but in a way, that helps the actors' performance. As Joan herself said, unless you really like the character you're playing, you won't be believable. In fact, one of the actresses who played Daisy in one of the many versions of "The Great Gatsby" said that she couldn't think of Daisy as a terrible person, despite the fact that she was; otherwise she wouldn't be able to play the part.
- Awards
- 27
I think it's possible to enjoy playing a dastardly character, and actors should be able to play psychopaths convincingly.
A loving mother? Fiercely protective of her children? I never saw that on the show, besides, a real mother could never kill someone else's child (in essence, this would end the argument altogether, but that wouldn't be much fun).
Ironically, I found Alexis the most menacing when she was being nice because sooner or later she'd take advantage of the fact that they believed her.
What's more ironic is the fact that, in her own delusional way (like many of these soap villains) Alexis thought she was the righteous one*.
And that seems to coincide with JC's depiction of the Alexis character. It's just so bizarre.
Not saying that she didn't have reasons to hate her ex-husband - then again, was that about the injustice or the fact that the man she (used to) love rejected and banished her?
In other words: her narcissistic personality?
*unless she didn't, and wanted everyone to believe that's how she felt. This would cause the others to question (and therefore underestimate) her intelligence. The result of that is that they could interpret her wrongdoings as a form of stupidity rather than pure wickedness.
Having your enemies believe that they're smarter than you is a very effective way of manipulation.
But I honestly don't think DYNASTY was that smart.
Also, by claiming that Alexis was a fabulous, vengeful powerhouse with a heart of gold, it's basically "have your cake and eat it". And who needs a non-powerhouse heroine like Krystle?
No, Joan, Alexis wasn't the wronged heroine, KRYSTLE was. Wronged by your evil character "Alexis".
Nicolette has never seen Joan Collins playing Alexis? Was that even possible in those days?
Or is she just another actress claiming "oh I'm not influenced by the original portrayal at all, My Alexis is completely my character, 100% original!)
These interviews are total bullsh*t.
- Awards
- 18
Maybe it's about playing a character from the "inside out" rather than the "outside in". Other people may look at a person from the outside and label them a bitch or a saint or whatever, but people rarely think of themselves that way. I think it's the same with acting (though obviously it differs from actor or actor) -- it's about understanding why a character does what s/he does (i.e, what they hope to achieve and why it's important to them to achieve it) rather than "I'm just doing this because I'm playing a bitch", which would probably make for a pretty one-dimensional performance.
So maybe it's more about understanding the character's point of view rather than necessarily having to like them.
So maybe it's more about understanding the character's point of view rather than necessarily having to like them.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 27
Yes, except that Joan Collins' point of view didn't make sense, although it made perfect sense for Alexis.
It's such a mysterious, confusing web of paradoxes and juxtapositions.
I respectfully disagree. Alexis is the real psychopath who's obsessed with money and power and taking back her throne at all costs. Fallon is an emotionally scarred woman with serious psychological issues who deep down has a strong desire to win her mother's love and affection.
- Awards
- 14
I don't think, as an actor you can go into playing a role believing that everything your character does is wrong even if it seems plainly obvious that it is. You have to find who they are, what they believe to be true and go from there. You wouldn't really think about your co-stars motivations. I think Joan genuinely does think Alexis was in the right most the time. Sure she knows she was bitchy and wicked but I do feel she thinks Alexis was justified in her actions most of the time.
People are not perfect. Not even the sterling Krystle was. We all have flaws, we all have neuroses' and blind spots.
I think Joan latched on to certain things about Alexis' story that may have mirrored slightly events in her own life and she used those to drive her character. She'd had failed marriages, messy divorces, strained relationships with her children due to having to work all over the place, she'd been top of the heap and then she'd been rock bottom. She'd felt victimised as a woman in Hollywood, scrutinised for her looks, her age etc... I think all of that adds up to why Joan believes Alexis was right and why Joan loved playing her. I have said it before, but Alexis was an extension of Joan. Joan with unlimited budget and resources. Joan in a fantasy land where nobody could ever touch her, hurt her, maker her a victim. Ever.
There certainly is a lot of psychology that goes into it, but I think I genuinely understand it.
- Awards
- 27
The scene with Tom Carrington (video) was very well done. Maybe they should have shown it the episode before Alexis arrives, just to tantalize us.
I think an actor should believe that his/her character believes that he/she is justified. That's the difference.
I can see that there was a coincidental parallel, so the "liking of" is based on indentification. But I didn't say that she couldn't enjoy Alexis' success.
- Awards
- 14
But then the lines are blurred, where does Joan end and Alexis begin? Therein lies the problem.
Who's more delusional, Joan or Alexis? Who's really acting, Alexis or Joan?
Last edited:
- Awards
- 27
We all loved Alexis, why shouldn't she be fond of her character? But that's not the same as attributing features to the character that really weren't there. And now Nicolette is doing exactly the same - or so it seems.
Angela Channing is another villain who's often being romanticized.
Larry Hagman knew that JR was a bastard and he loved it.
Angela Channing is another villain who's often being romanticized.
Larry Hagman knew that JR was a bastard and he loved it.
- Awards
- 2
Does she honestly expect us to believe she never watched the original Dynasty? Never?
- Awards
- 2
I think part of that was Joan romanticizing or playing up some of the aspects of Alexis that didn't get a lot of time but were clearly there - like the teen marriage; the kidnapping of her first child; and her complexes and pathologies surrounding being publicly branded a wanton woman, and having her children stripped away for "siXteen yeeehuhz."
While you can't justify her actions, you can certainly build a defense based on the fact that she was essentially driven crazy and thus acted accordingly. By the same token, Blake deserved to have hell served to him on a platter, even though the collateral damage to Krystle was unjustifiable.
I didn't watch Dallas (cringe), so I don't know whether JR had any mitigating circumstances in his past. Then again, I guess, everybody has a story.
As an actor, your job is to know that story and let it propel your character where ever he or she would naturally go per the writing. "I know what I did was dead wrong" said no sociopath ever.
While you can't justify her actions, you can certainly build a defense based on the fact that she was essentially driven crazy and thus acted accordingly. By the same token, Blake deserved to have hell served to him on a platter, even though the collateral damage to Krystle was unjustifiable.
I didn't watch Dallas (cringe), so I don't know whether JR had any mitigating circumstances in his past. Then again, I guess, everybody has a story.
As an actor, your job is to know that story and let it propel your character where ever he or she would naturally go per the writing. "I know what I did was dead wrong" said no sociopath ever.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 14
I guess she was awful busy being on Knots Landing and getting up at 5 am and working what? 12, 14 hr days?
- Awards
- 2
I see.
- Awards
- 18
Well, for whatever it's worth, when I interviewed Linda Gray, I asked her if she ever felt envious of the Knots Landing gals for being in a show that was more "female-centric" (or words to that effect). She said no, she felt a bond with the cast of Knots given they were all working under the same kind of conditions, but she never watched it, she never had time cos she was too busy during the day doing the same sort of thing -- why would she watch someone else doing her job when she got home at night?
K
Karin Schill
Guest
JR justified most of the bad things he did by that it was for the sake of Ewing Oil. A company his father had started and that his son would one day inherit. So in essense everything JR did was for his family. For his father and for his son.
Also when JR tried to break up Bobby and Pam he justified that with that Pam wasn't good enough for Bobby since she was a Barnes so he was really only doing it for Bobby's own good.
It was also established that JR's parents favored his younger brothers over him. Bobby was Jock's favorite and Gary was Miss Ellie's. So JR felt competitive towards his brothers. He wanted to feel loved by his parents.