The Art of Acting
For the longest time, art and acting were two things that were seldom put together - only because acting was something that was not understood. History can speak for itself. Back in the Middle Ages, when Shakespearean plays were giving rise, acting was given very little recognition as an actual career. If you were an actor, it wasn’t seen as a “serious job.” In fact, women weren’t even allowed to be actors. Men had to play the role of women. As time progressed, acting evolved into something bigger as the entertainment industry began to flourish. Nowadays, it is a career that is well-respected and one that can finally be labeled as an artform that requires talent, focus, and a lot of hard work. Note, I’m not talking about celebrities – I’m talking about actors. And although the world of entertainment is in our faces every waking minute, acting still remains one of the most mysterious professions out there. It’s something that needs to be experienced in order to be understood. Hence, why I find acting so intriguing and one that should be given much more credit. I’m not an actor myself, nor have I ever taken a drama class but through these blog posts, I hope to instigate and propagate a conversation about the art of acting. Each week or so, I will discuss topics about acting and the entertainment world in order to decipher “acting” and break that 4th wall between what you see on the screen and what goes on behind the scenes.
September 1st, 2015
More than just a pretty face: The role of the actor in romancing the audience
Actor Kristin Kreuk as "the beauty" in the CW's Beauty and the Beast.
As I drove around L.A. today, I thought about how one’s perception of an actor changes based on the role they play. Actors have the power to convince you that they are the strongest man alive, the evilest witch in the woods, the smartest genius in history, or the most beautiful woman in the world. To illustrate my point, I will use Kristin Kreuk as my example (as I often will). She is currently playing “the beauty” in the CW’s Beauty and the Beast. Not only is the role iconic - loaded with the history of Hollywood’s multiple adaptations of the tale - it’s also making a social statement about women: who is considered beautiful? Especially in the world of today, determining who would be cast for the role would be crucial. What would make this “new beauty” different from all the other beauties?? When Kristin was first cast as “the beauty,” I wasn’t completely convinced that she would live up to the role. I immediately associated her with Smallville – something I’m sure Kristin wants to break free from. Comparing her to previous actresses who have played “the beauty,” Kristin is strikingly different when it comes to her looks. Her half-asian, half-dutch complexion have definitely caused some heads to turn and made her a household name in the TV industry, but I simply could not picture her as “the beauty.” Either way, I gave the show a chance and after one episode – I was hooked. After one scene – Kristin made me fall in love with Catherine Chandler. I could understand why Vincent was head over heels about this girl. Note – I am a straight female. And what I mean by that is that whether you are male or female, part of the actor’s job is to make YOU fall in love with their character, regardless of their gender and your gender. Why? To get YOU emotionally hooked. What for? To get YOU invested in the story and root for the happy ending. The question is: how?? Especially when it comes to romance and a story like Beauty and the Beast, we want to understand why these two characters love each other. And after one scene, I was convinced that Kristin was indeed “the beauty” – the most beautiful woman in the world. (If you’re curious about which scene I’m talking about, it’s the one in Season 1, episode 6 titled “Worth” where Vincent and Catherine discuss the paintings of the woman the artist loves). How come I didn’t see that in Kristin before? The key is that it’s not just Kristin’s good looks – it’s her acting. Everything from the way she speaks, the gaze in her eyes, the furrow of her brow – in short, it’s the way she plays Catherine Chandler; her interactions with Vincent – the man she loves. Now in the show’s third season, I can’t think of anyone else playing that role and I am truly convinced that Kristin is one of the most beautiful people out there. It’s so weird how acting can screw up with your perception of a certain person. You never know how actors may be off-screen which is why I prefer not to meet actors in person or at least ones that I am fond of. In conclusion, whether you’re super attractive or not, as an actor - you’ve got to make everyone see the beauty that the opposite character sees in you. It’s not to say that the good-looking actors have it easier than the average-looking ones. Sure, they may be easy on the eyes but if they don’t deliver on the emotion – then you’re just looking at a pretty face. Then that’s just bad acting. Doesn’t matter how pretty you are – if you get to the audience’s heart: you’ve won them over.
September 8th, 2015
The modern female character: gaining a soft edge
Dakota Johnson as Anastasia Steele in Fifty Shades of Grey.
Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen in The Hunger Games.
Kerry Washington as Olivia Pope in ABC's Scandal.
Ginnifer Goodwin as Snow White in ABC's Once Upon A Time.
Kristin Kreuk as Catherine Chandler in the CW's Beauty and the Beast.
Looking at our top leading ladies of today, I couldn’t help but wonder, “What is it that I enjoy about these characters?” I’m thinking about characters to the likes of Catherine Chandler from the CW’s Beauty and the Beast, Anastasia Steele from Fifty Shades of Grey, Katniss Everdeen from The Hunger Games, Show White from ABC’s Once Upon a Time, Olivia Pope from ABC’s Scandal, etc. I’m sure there are more characters that fit this category but just to name a few off the top of my head. Anyway, I realized that all these heroines have something in common: an acquired “soft edge.” What I mean by this is that while keeping with the classic female stereotype of being loving, motherly, sensitive, and understanding - they also break barriers by being stubborn, independent, daring, and a bit masculine. They aren’t perfect; they come with flaws that they themselves recognize but are quick to recover from and move on. I should also add that the “modern female” role is quite transformative. Over the duration of a TV series or an entire film, we get to watch these characters start from one point to end up radically at some other point – a true measure to the growth of these female characters. Since most people are familiar with Dakota Johnson’s Anastasia Steele from Fifty Shades of Grey, I will use her as an example to illustrate what I mean by having a “soft edge” and where modern female characters find themselves today.
At a first glance at the premise of the story for Fifty Shades of Grey, it may seem that the character of Anastasia Steele is a step backwards for females and a bit degrading to a woman: literally reducing her to the role of a submissive. However, it is through the course of the story that we see the tables turn – making her the controlling, powerful, dominant one. It’s one thing to read it in the book, it’s another to see it in the film. I, for one, haven’t read the books so I can only speak to the material that I’ve seen on screen. Although hesitant of watching the film, Dakota Johnson is the only reason that made the film to be somewhat enjoyable and successful. It is through the manner that Dakota plays Ana, giving her that soft edge where I can understand Ana’s actions and sympathize with her. More importantly, Dakota adds so much more complexity to the character of Ana, making her more than just some innocent, dumb, virgin that falls prey to a sadistic, abusive, controlling man. It becomes more than just “porn for moms.”
It’s quite obvious to see how charmingly Dakota plays Ana. Right from the first scene, she tells us who Anastasia is. Everything from the sound of her soft voice, her nervous glances and gulps, her hesitant movements, etc. – it informs us of the character and make us like her. But it’s that shy bite of her lip, that curiosity – that states that there’s something more to her. She may be naïve and a bit clumsy, but she is also sophisticated and intelligent. Through the course of the film, we see Ana evolve, gaining a stronger voice and discovering a newfound confidence and power. And we see this through performance: the change of her stride, the firmness in her tone, her determined gaze, and her deliberate actions. Costume also helped reflect that change. Sure, if in her shoes, there would be certain things I wouldn’t do and is hard for me to watch – but Dakota makes us understand Ana. She has her moments of weakness (like we all do) but she makes up for them, especially in the end when she puts her foot down. And this is part of the “modern female arc” where the character starts out being “weak” - succumbing to her emotions and desires – but is quick to develop her strength by going against the norm and people’s expectations of them.
There are several scenes where we see Ana’s growth but there’s one scene where Dakota truly captivates Ana’s “soft edge” and is one of my favorite scenes. It’s the scene where Ana schedules a meeting with Christian to discuss modifications to the contract. It’s here where the tables turn. Everything from the way she strides in from the elevator, her formality towards Christian, voicing her opinion, and sexually teasing Christian – it makes her powerful enough to be able to break this man down, literally until he is on his knees, begging for her to stay (later on in the end). Ana keeps with the classic female stereotype, creeping into the femme fatale arena by using her femininity and sexuality to control Christian. However, we see her edge come into play when she uses his tactics, his business tactics, to step into his world, insult his masculinity. It is here when we applaud Ana because she breaks her stereotype. Her sophistication and intelligence that remained hidden before, comes into full force here. We see her potential as a leader and we see her power as Christian quietly succumbs to her orders and follows her directions, just to keep her. She is no longer the weak one. And it is all done through Dakota’s interpretation of Ana – giving her that soft edge. In the end, we get a completely different Ana from the beginning of the film and the journey is what makes both the character and the film enjoyable, despite the rather dark and abusive backstory.
These are the heroines I hope to see more of. They are much more human because they have flaws – flaws they are willing to fix. These women are determined – they know what they want and they are quite unpredictable – you never know what might set them off. They are powerful voices who inevitably reflect a woman’s role in the world of today. I say inevitably because these characters, whether fictitious or not, and whether you like it or not, create role models for young women. Keeping with the trend, Hollywood has always reinforced society’s stereotypes and expectations of women through their female characters. Everything from the typical damsel in distress, the unhappy housewife, the dangerous working woman, the femme fatale, etc. Compare that to what we see today - these modern female characters are a huge step forward: always controversial and not afraid to go against stereotypes. It’s an emphasis on being “who you are” and standing up for what you believe in. And if that’s the future for women, well I certainly have a lot to look forward to.
At a first glance at the premise of the story for Fifty Shades of Grey, it may seem that the character of Anastasia Steele is a step backwards for females and a bit degrading to a woman: literally reducing her to the role of a submissive. However, it is through the course of the story that we see the tables turn – making her the controlling, powerful, dominant one. It’s one thing to read it in the book, it’s another to see it in the film. I, for one, haven’t read the books so I can only speak to the material that I’ve seen on screen. Although hesitant of watching the film, Dakota Johnson is the only reason that made the film to be somewhat enjoyable and successful. It is through the manner that Dakota plays Ana, giving her that soft edge where I can understand Ana’s actions and sympathize with her. More importantly, Dakota adds so much more complexity to the character of Ana, making her more than just some innocent, dumb, virgin that falls prey to a sadistic, abusive, controlling man. It becomes more than just “porn for moms.”
It’s quite obvious to see how charmingly Dakota plays Ana. Right from the first scene, she tells us who Anastasia is. Everything from the sound of her soft voice, her nervous glances and gulps, her hesitant movements, etc. – it informs us of the character and make us like her. But it’s that shy bite of her lip, that curiosity – that states that there’s something more to her. She may be naïve and a bit clumsy, but she is also sophisticated and intelligent. Through the course of the film, we see Ana evolve, gaining a stronger voice and discovering a newfound confidence and power. And we see this through performance: the change of her stride, the firmness in her tone, her determined gaze, and her deliberate actions. Costume also helped reflect that change. Sure, if in her shoes, there would be certain things I wouldn’t do and is hard for me to watch – but Dakota makes us understand Ana. She has her moments of weakness (like we all do) but she makes up for them, especially in the end when she puts her foot down. And this is part of the “modern female arc” where the character starts out being “weak” - succumbing to her emotions and desires – but is quick to develop her strength by going against the norm and people’s expectations of them.
There are several scenes where we see Ana’s growth but there’s one scene where Dakota truly captivates Ana’s “soft edge” and is one of my favorite scenes. It’s the scene where Ana schedules a meeting with Christian to discuss modifications to the contract. It’s here where the tables turn. Everything from the way she strides in from the elevator, her formality towards Christian, voicing her opinion, and sexually teasing Christian – it makes her powerful enough to be able to break this man down, literally until he is on his knees, begging for her to stay (later on in the end). Ana keeps with the classic female stereotype, creeping into the femme fatale arena by using her femininity and sexuality to control Christian. However, we see her edge come into play when she uses his tactics, his business tactics, to step into his world, insult his masculinity. It is here when we applaud Ana because she breaks her stereotype. Her sophistication and intelligence that remained hidden before, comes into full force here. We see her potential as a leader and we see her power as Christian quietly succumbs to her orders and follows her directions, just to keep her. She is no longer the weak one. And it is all done through Dakota’s interpretation of Ana – giving her that soft edge. In the end, we get a completely different Ana from the beginning of the film and the journey is what makes both the character and the film enjoyable, despite the rather dark and abusive backstory.
These are the heroines I hope to see more of. They are much more human because they have flaws – flaws they are willing to fix. These women are determined – they know what they want and they are quite unpredictable – you never know what might set them off. They are powerful voices who inevitably reflect a woman’s role in the world of today. I say inevitably because these characters, whether fictitious or not, and whether you like it or not, create role models for young women. Keeping with the trend, Hollywood has always reinforced society’s stereotypes and expectations of women through their female characters. Everything from the typical damsel in distress, the unhappy housewife, the dangerous working woman, the femme fatale, etc. Compare that to what we see today - these modern female characters are a huge step forward: always controversial and not afraid to go against stereotypes. It’s an emphasis on being “who you are” and standing up for what you believe in. And if that’s the future for women, well I certainly have a lot to look forward to.
September 29th, 2015
The actor as artist: the act of performing
Jean Dujardin (L) as George Valentin and Berenice Bejo (R) as Peppy Miller in The Artist (2011).
If there's anything we love about watching a movie or an hour long TV show - it's the drama. The drama that encapsulates us and makes us root for the people we see on screen. And where does the drama come from?? The performance. Of course it's the actors who are responsible for creating the performance because that's what an actor does - they perform. But what does it mean to perform?? Does it mean to mimic reality?? Does it mean an exaggeration to some extent?? Does it mean improvisation?? If we look in the dictionary, the formal definition of a performance is "the action of representing a character." Therefore, if an actor is simply representing a character which is based on a person - what separates that from reality? My theory is that a performance involves a little bit of everything mentioned above - but the key to making it work is maintaining that tricky balance between keeping the performance grounded in reality while at the same time taking some artistic liberty with it.
An actor is an artist. They observe, they absorb, they create. For any artist, whatever they create is in some form or manner - an expression of themselves. Let's take painting for example. If you tell five painters to paint the same mountain in the distance - you will get five completely different paintings even though the subject matter is the same mountain. The same concept applies to acting. If you tell five actors to read the same scene - you will get five different performances. In this sense, the performance to an actor is the painting to the painter. The actor is painting a portrait of their character. If we look at it in this capacity, the performance is never going to be a strict representation of reality. In fact, it is the artistic interpretation of reality that differentiates actors from other actors and what makes some performances better than others. This isn't a question of aesthetic appeal, it's a matter of honest representation.
So in effect, what we're really talking about here is an artistic representation of reality - real characters experiencing real emotions going through real events. It doesn't matter if the subject matter is fictional or not. Of course, what has been deemed an "honest representation" is always changing and it primarily depends on what is acceptable to audiences at the time. For example, at the turn of the twentieth century and well into the early 1900s, exaggerated and overtly dramatic performances were considered acceptable. I am referring of course to the pantomime style of acting adopted during the silent era. It was quite theatrical and effective storytelling because they were good performances - they made the audience feel what they were supposed to feel. Obviously, there were practical reasons as to why actors had to exaggerate every movement and emotion - but in the end, all it was was an artistic representation of reality - one that the audience thought acceptable. As we move on to the Golden Era of Hollywood, performances still maintained that exaggeration and boldness. It may seem ridiculous to us now and is constantly prone to parody, but it was these grand gestures, these swoon-worthy movements, that made people fall head over heels for actors like Cary Grant, Rudolph Valentino, Clark Gable, Humphrey Bogart, Douglas Fairbanks, etc. As time progressed, we moved away from grand, bold movements and began to focus on the minute, smaller gestures that seemed closer to reality. This marks the introduction of method acting that began in the 1950s and still continues to be used today. I won't get much into the history of acting but just to give you an idea of how performances have changed throughout time.
If we look at performances today - the challenge rests in making every movement, every act, every line - seem natural and organic. It's not an easy thing to do. And here's where the value of an actor stems forth. They can make something as simple as pouring milk into a glass - a performance. They take something ordinary and add their own spark to it. And that's what the actor has to keep in mind: how does my character feel right now and how would they go about doing things? It's less about blocking out the performance and more about communicating the emotion realistically through every action. This concept is much more effective in scenes that require the emotion to be reciprocated in every part of your body. For instance - love scenes. Actors aren't just told "to kiss," they're told to perform a kiss. This means taking things a bit further to communicate the passion between the two characters. Meaning, it involves some choreography. That's where we get the face touching, arms wrapping around each other, hands digging through each other's hair, very loud breathing and panting, arching of the neck and back, moans, etc. You've seen this before. Yet, it has to be tastefully done so it doesn't become too gross or too chaste. In reality, people don't kiss like that. But we accept this interpretation of love because it does feel very passionate and in the end - we get tied up in the romance and hope to experience something to that effect as well.
Observing performance in an artistic capacity enables us to view the actor as an artist and the performance as the artwork. And in so doing, we can better understand the art of performing.
An actor is an artist. They observe, they absorb, they create. For any artist, whatever they create is in some form or manner - an expression of themselves. Let's take painting for example. If you tell five painters to paint the same mountain in the distance - you will get five completely different paintings even though the subject matter is the same mountain. The same concept applies to acting. If you tell five actors to read the same scene - you will get five different performances. In this sense, the performance to an actor is the painting to the painter. The actor is painting a portrait of their character. If we look at it in this capacity, the performance is never going to be a strict representation of reality. In fact, it is the artistic interpretation of reality that differentiates actors from other actors and what makes some performances better than others. This isn't a question of aesthetic appeal, it's a matter of honest representation.
So in effect, what we're really talking about here is an artistic representation of reality - real characters experiencing real emotions going through real events. It doesn't matter if the subject matter is fictional or not. Of course, what has been deemed an "honest representation" is always changing and it primarily depends on what is acceptable to audiences at the time. For example, at the turn of the twentieth century and well into the early 1900s, exaggerated and overtly dramatic performances were considered acceptable. I am referring of course to the pantomime style of acting adopted during the silent era. It was quite theatrical and effective storytelling because they were good performances - they made the audience feel what they were supposed to feel. Obviously, there were practical reasons as to why actors had to exaggerate every movement and emotion - but in the end, all it was was an artistic representation of reality - one that the audience thought acceptable. As we move on to the Golden Era of Hollywood, performances still maintained that exaggeration and boldness. It may seem ridiculous to us now and is constantly prone to parody, but it was these grand gestures, these swoon-worthy movements, that made people fall head over heels for actors like Cary Grant, Rudolph Valentino, Clark Gable, Humphrey Bogart, Douglas Fairbanks, etc. As time progressed, we moved away from grand, bold movements and began to focus on the minute, smaller gestures that seemed closer to reality. This marks the introduction of method acting that began in the 1950s and still continues to be used today. I won't get much into the history of acting but just to give you an idea of how performances have changed throughout time.
If we look at performances today - the challenge rests in making every movement, every act, every line - seem natural and organic. It's not an easy thing to do. And here's where the value of an actor stems forth. They can make something as simple as pouring milk into a glass - a performance. They take something ordinary and add their own spark to it. And that's what the actor has to keep in mind: how does my character feel right now and how would they go about doing things? It's less about blocking out the performance and more about communicating the emotion realistically through every action. This concept is much more effective in scenes that require the emotion to be reciprocated in every part of your body. For instance - love scenes. Actors aren't just told "to kiss," they're told to perform a kiss. This means taking things a bit further to communicate the passion between the two characters. Meaning, it involves some choreography. That's where we get the face touching, arms wrapping around each other, hands digging through each other's hair, very loud breathing and panting, arching of the neck and back, moans, etc. You've seen this before. Yet, it has to be tastefully done so it doesn't become too gross or too chaste. In reality, people don't kiss like that. But we accept this interpretation of love because it does feel very passionate and in the end - we get tied up in the romance and hope to experience something to that effect as well.
Observing performance in an artistic capacity enables us to view the actor as an artist and the performance as the artwork. And in so doing, we can better understand the art of performing.
October 20th, 2015
Creating Chemistry: the "magic" behind the scenes
Actors Kristin Kreuk (L) and Jay Ryan (R) from the CW's Beauty and the Beast.
Chances are you've heard the phrase, "They have great chemistry together!" or "Their chemistry radiated off the screen!" sometime in your life when reading about movies or TV. It's an intriguing phenomenon only because it says something about human relationships and as humans, we can't get enough of it. Chemistry is one of the greatest mysteries of Hollywood and yet, it is one of the most powerful storytelling tools ever. Moreover, it is one of the key elements that determine whether a story works or not and whether a relationship is convincing enough to move people. It's a term that is often mentioned and thrown around to describe a couple, but do we really understand what that term means?? Let me tell you this much - you won't find much books on chemistry, much less how to create chemistry. So, when trying to find some information on the term and it's meaning, I found that there is no definite definition of "chemistry" because it's described more as an experience between two people. Hence, in order to understand what chemistry is, it needs to be experienced. In that capacity, chemistry is more of an abstract concept rather than a concrete, tangible ingredient that you simply place in your work. It works on an emotional level and it is what makes the written words go beyond the page, elevating the material to the point where a separate, transparent dialogue is created between the actors. That's when the magic happens.
When questioned about chemistry, actors explain, rather vaguely, that it occurs when two actors are "present" in a scene together - meaning that they are in character and focused on the scene at hand. While this seems primarily obvious due to the nature of their job, chemistry also heavily depends on the working relationship at hand. And for this, there needs to be a significant amount of trust and respect shared between the two. When using the term "co-stars," it implies that the two actors are equally as important and responsible in doing their job. And in many ways, function as partners in bringing a story to life. In an ideal world, everyone would get along, people would enjoy working together, and because of this - great work is produced. However, this is not the case all the time. What if there is no trust or respect on set? Can we still create chemistry?? Yes! Granted, it doesn't make it a pleasant working environment but we can still manage to get the results that we want. Technically, whatever emotion you feel towards someone you can use to create chemistry. Sometimes the greatest love stories were told by two people that loathed each other or genuinely hated the story. Now, that takes a great amount of stamina, being professional on set and being able to handle that type of working environment. I think most actors would choose working in healthy, working environments over anything else, but sometimes other factors weigh in and you just have to . . . go with the flow.
Once the shots are done and sets are being torn down, you would think the actors' job is over. But no! Now, comes the task of promoting the work. And here, is where chemistry is extremely critical because you have to sell the story to the public. And although you are no longer in character, you do have to be mindful of what you present. You have to communicate a great relationship with your co-star and convince people that this is the best movie or TV show ever. Whatever problems occurred during the duration of the shoot, you have to forget and say that you worked with the most talented people ever and that you really had a great time making this movie or show. That's what bloopers do. They make it seem like everyone is awesome and making movies/shows is fun! I like to believe that. But it's in the sit-down interviews where people can really sense whether something is off or not. Not much has to be said because it's all done through body language - eye contact, certain gestures of closeness or affection, proximity towards one another, and just communicating pure interest in what the other person is saying. When this happens, they become likable and you become interested in seeing them on screen together and before you know it - you can't take your eyes off of them.
Much like a fairytale, they enchant us with their stories and emotional landscapes - reaching people from across the globe, creating a holistic, unifying experience - and it doesn't take long before we realize that we have indeed - fallen under their spell. That's the magic of chemistry.
When questioned about chemistry, actors explain, rather vaguely, that it occurs when two actors are "present" in a scene together - meaning that they are in character and focused on the scene at hand. While this seems primarily obvious due to the nature of their job, chemistry also heavily depends on the working relationship at hand. And for this, there needs to be a significant amount of trust and respect shared between the two. When using the term "co-stars," it implies that the two actors are equally as important and responsible in doing their job. And in many ways, function as partners in bringing a story to life. In an ideal world, everyone would get along, people would enjoy working together, and because of this - great work is produced. However, this is not the case all the time. What if there is no trust or respect on set? Can we still create chemistry?? Yes! Granted, it doesn't make it a pleasant working environment but we can still manage to get the results that we want. Technically, whatever emotion you feel towards someone you can use to create chemistry. Sometimes the greatest love stories were told by two people that loathed each other or genuinely hated the story. Now, that takes a great amount of stamina, being professional on set and being able to handle that type of working environment. I think most actors would choose working in healthy, working environments over anything else, but sometimes other factors weigh in and you just have to . . . go with the flow.
Once the shots are done and sets are being torn down, you would think the actors' job is over. But no! Now, comes the task of promoting the work. And here, is where chemistry is extremely critical because you have to sell the story to the public. And although you are no longer in character, you do have to be mindful of what you present. You have to communicate a great relationship with your co-star and convince people that this is the best movie or TV show ever. Whatever problems occurred during the duration of the shoot, you have to forget and say that you worked with the most talented people ever and that you really had a great time making this movie or show. That's what bloopers do. They make it seem like everyone is awesome and making movies/shows is fun! I like to believe that. But it's in the sit-down interviews where people can really sense whether something is off or not. Not much has to be said because it's all done through body language - eye contact, certain gestures of closeness or affection, proximity towards one another, and just communicating pure interest in what the other person is saying. When this happens, they become likable and you become interested in seeing them on screen together and before you know it - you can't take your eyes off of them.
Much like a fairytale, they enchant us with their stories and emotional landscapes - reaching people from across the globe, creating a holistic, unifying experience - and it doesn't take long before we realize that we have indeed - fallen under their spell. That's the magic of chemistry.
