by on

I just discovered (and most probably I am the last person in the world to do so) that the classic film Back to the Future has undergone several cast changes. Even the main character, Marty McFly, was played by an actor other than Michael J. Fox during a few weeks of filming. The footage ended up being discarded, which contributed to nourishing the gigantic memorabilia of the iconic production.

The lead male role of Marty McFly was originally played by actor Eric Stoltz. However, after several weeks of filming, the producers and filmmakers decided to replace Stoltz with Michael J. Fox, who was the original choice for the role. The problem is that Fox was also involved in the sitcom Family Ties and would not have time for filming (the situation would later be resolved simply by doubling the filming routine of the actor, an experience that Fox himself later classified it as “insane”).

The decision of going not taking Stolz was based on the belief that his the portrayal of the character was not aligning with the comedic tone of the film as envisioned. As a result, they had to re-shot all scenes of Stoltz, leading to the final version of the movie that is well-known and beloved today.

Even a person like me, uninformed about the precise numbers of the finantial impact of reshooting weeks and weeks of footage (and let us not forget that they were dealing with the technology available in Hollywood in 1985), understands that the costs involved are immense, and that such a decision can lead to the failure of any project. Therefore, it is not difficult to imagine that no production will go through this, unless ii is absolutely necessary.

But what was the problem with Stolz? According to actors who shared scenes with him, Stolz was a “method” actor, meaning that following his acting rituals was extremely important to him. Examples of his method would include, for instance, being addressed only by the name of his character, not talking (and pretending not to listen) to his colleagues when they were not in a scene with him, and using real physical force (instead of staged moves) during fight scenes.

Since Stolz did not get the job, does it mean that having a method is a problem per se? Not at all! Having a method with rules that impose a deep dive into the character may have been the reason for the success of the previous roles played by Stolz, but it was for sure the cause of his departure from the cast of Back to the Future.

The search for character depth ended up taking the actor too far (and in the wrong direction). By privileging the detail, Stolz lost the sense of the whole. His compreehension of Marty as a tragic hero who ultimately returns to a future in which his family is financially well off, but where he lands as an outsider, certainly added layers to the character, but it also took away much of his charm and humor.

While the approach of Michael J. Fox is extremely humanistic in his fumbling quest to “do the right thing”, Stolz highlighted the futility of any action. As interesting as this “memento mori” version of Marty may seem, it takes a huge step away from comedy and it is no surprise that Stolz was removed from the project.

The biggest problem of Stolz, ultimately, was his method apparently made him a prisoner, instead of helping him. Reviewing from time to time the rules we impose on ourselves can be as important as the method itself, because if the rules are preventing our growth, then they are not rules, but chains holding us back.

No method is equally applicable in all situations, and it will always be necessary to contextualize and to adapt, which reminds me of another story told by the great Brazilian accordion virtuoso and composer Luiz Gonzaga in an interview.

In his youth, Gonzava tried to join the army band, but was dismissed after failing in playing the “E flat” the conductor demanded. At the end of the interview the reporter asked him if in order to be a great accordion player it was really necessary to know how to play an E-flat.

Gonzaga responded between laughs: “Look, to this day I do not know what a E-flat is. I play by ear.”

Be seeing you!

G.F.

by on

I just had the experience of spending almost two days completely without electricity and internet access, plus three hours under a very unstable power supply, the kind that its great for your household appliances, if your intention is to burn them.

As you can imagine, this is an unpleasant situation. At any temperature. Now, let your imagination soar and dream yourself experiencing it in the middle of a heat wave. How hot? We are talking about temperatures around thirty-five degrees Celsius, twenty-four hours a day. Yes, even in the early hours of the morning.

And if you sweat just thinking about this degree of heat, know that you are on the right path to have a vague idea of what I went through. No fan, no air conditioning, no garden. However, just like any extreme situation, trying not to lose your head (and, if possible also your mind) is at the same time, the biggest challenge and your only way out.

Establishing a minimum comfort zone is essential to gather strength. And how to do this? For me, first of all, it involves determining whether the basics for immediate survival (can I breathe, despite the heat? do I have enough cold, fresh water to drink? Opening the refrigerator door and not letting the hot outside air in should always be the last option.

Once this minimum zone of confort is assured, you have to look for something positive (or the least worst), something that allows you to say “but” (everything seems to be going wrong, but…). In my case, this small comfort is the silence in which the street seems to immerse, when there is no electricity.

The soundless world that can erupt from even the noisiest neighborhoods when people are deprived of electricity is simply fascinating. One could say that it is comparable to the calm of rainy days, during which the sound of drops seems to drown out everything so that we can better appreciate the orchestra of nature, but nights without electricity in the city offer an even deeper immersion in silence.

After some time in the dark, the voices and noises become more sparse, weaker, until they stop completely. It is as if, deprived of the light, we went back in time and shared the same fears that the first of us felt. Perhaps silence reminds us that we are, each and every one of us, very weak little creatures and we feel afraid, when we do not have fire, lights and all the other shiny objects we surround ourselves with to entertain us from the anguish at the nothingness that we are. It can be pretty hard to face that you are just a human being.

As for myself, I tried to overcome the problem by reconnecting with my natural biological cycle: I slept as soon as it got dark and got up when the sun rose, in order to make the most of the daylight. And when the computer battery ran out, I cooked, organized the wardrobe, separated clothes for donation and read for hours. It was detoxifying and quite calming.

Embracing silence may be a way to cope when you yourself have to face soundless, fearful days.

Be seeing you!

G.F.