Crime, Mysteries & Thrillers discussion
Archive - General
>
Who is your all time favourite actor?
message 1:
by
Betsy
(new)
Sep 16, 2015 07:19AM
The late, great Peter O'Toole
reply
|
flag
Sebastian wrote: "Debbie wrote: "Bruce Willis"I like Bruce."
Love his swagger and his sarcasm. He was good in Moonlighting but action films are what he does best.
I'd have to say a toss-up between Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis.
All of those are great actors and I think part of what we like or dislike about an actor comes from what roles they play. I've always liked Pierce Brosnan (and had wished he became Bond years before he really did but now realize he would have been too young looking). I like Daniel Craig especially as Bond because now that I've read the books, he is closest to what Ian Fleming was talking about. But then there is Johnny Depp ...
William Holden, is my #1. He's got entire decades without a bad flick to pass over; you could basically watch every film he did in the 1950s without having to skip any. He played in all sorts of roles--sensitive as well as tough; almost never making a truly bad movie. Even if any one of his flicks was a little clunky --he himself was probably not bad in it. He always had that great poise, that sincerity, that quality of 'everyman'; that American-ness. Very similar to Jimmy Stewart in that respect; and while I love Stewart, even Stewart has some movies which are clumsy or groaners.Remember what Martin Scorcese says: movies are at their best when they either show us a different way to live, or hold a mirror up to the way we currently live. I like Bill Holden because he represents what I as an American male feel I oughta strive for. A lot of Holden's roles are about fair-play and doing-the-right-thing; or other values I respect.
Holden was one of those actors who started off with seemingly, a head start on others--he had natural athleticism & was always very handsome. But --like Redford who came later--he wasn't content to just coast on his good looks. He pushed himself as an actor; took challenging roles. In his private life (again like Redford) he busied himself with worthy causes and charities; and traveled the world as a sort of 'goodwill ambassador' for America.
Technically, sure--there were 'better' or more talented actors--but not any who speak to me more.
p.s. I didn't know O'Toole was no longer around. Wish you hadn't said so. Shocked and saddened to hear this.
Feliks wrote: "p.s. I didn't know O'Toole was no longer around. Wish you hadn't said so. Shocked and saddened to hear this."He died in December of 2013--a truly great actor.
James Stewart. The ordinary guy in extraordinary events.
And Sean Connery – inimitable.
And Sean Connery – inimitable.
Rusell Crowe, the man can play any role to perfection.Terri wrote: "Jack Nicholson"
I always felt he & Johnny Depp are a bit over-rated. They are very good at playing the same role over and over again, some eccentric character. But compared to how high a regard most fans seem to hold them they lack the versatility of a lot of their contemporaries.
Of course, there's no argument to tell someone that they shouldn't like anything which is 'their favorite'. If they're your favorite, that's that. More power to ye.Still, Crowe and Depp have certainly gotten slammed in recent years for slackness in their work.
Nicholson too --I agree--while maybe not getting 'slammed' because at this point (I think everyone simply likes to see him still appearing in roles)--nevertheless yes I agree that after a certain point in his fame he started 'repeating himself'. Coasting. 'Phoning in' his assignments. Same as deNiro has.
The difference though, is that Nicholson in his prime was unquestionably one of the 2-3 best actors in America. Really, perhaps the best post-WWII actor we produced other than Brando. He's one of a generation of actors who redefined American acting after the passing of the studio system. These stars were measured by adult audiences to the most exacting standards; and had fierce competition from a lot of other, talented stars for top honors.
Whereas anyone like Depp or Crowe, came along well after the Spielberg/Lucas shift; they make money but are not pioneers in any way; and they play their roles mostly for children/teens in summer blockbusters which never really require 'great' or mature acting, emotional acting. Just an observation.
Brando, on the other hand, played the following characters in just a handful of his movies: a Nazi (3 times), a Chinese peasant, a Southern racist, an Italian immigrant, a Roman tribune, a Mexican peasant, a British naval officer, a white-trash redneck, a New York dockworker, various cowboys, soldiers, bikers, all sorts of American outcasts and rebels..his power of voice/mimicry is similar to Olivier's in England. If this were England, Brando'd have a knighthood for sure.
Feliks wrote: "Of course, there's no argument to tell someone that they shouldn't like anything which is 'their favorite'. If they're your favorite, that's that. More power to ye.Still, Crowe and Depp have cert..."
I can not claim to see all of Nicholson's work but have seen most of his acclaimed movies Chinatown, The Shining, One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest and was not impressed by any of them except Chinatown. I can relate with you saying that Depp mainly appearing in teen movies. I can't remember a famous movie in his filmography except What's Eating Gilbert Grape & Donnie Brasco that was not mainly directed at a predominantly young audience, there certainly were others like Public Enemies but they were universally bashed.
It's not that Depp or Nicholson is bad by any stretch of imagination but that both of them seem content doing similar roles rather than pushing the limits of their respective talents.
But Crowe appearing in potboilers is generally a misinformed statement. His most acclaimed roles - L.A. Confidential (a 1940s cop in a neo-noir), A Beautiful Mind (Mathematician John Nash, deserved an Oscar), The Insider (a whistle blower against big tobacco), Gladiator (got an Oscar for playing the titular role), Cinderella Man (a real life boxer), American Gangster (playing a cop in another period piece). He had appeared in very few summer blockbusters in the last decade (he had a brief cameo in the latest Superman movie), so I think comparing his career choices with Depp who in the same time had done predominantly action movies (Pirates series, the Tourist, Lone Ranger, Transcendent, etc) is over-simplifying the matter. In fact I believe Crowe was among one of the best actors of his generation just like Nicholson might have been in his own time.
I think it's nearly impossible to become a pioneer in any form of mass entertainment (movies, music, gaming) in the present day because most ideas had already been explored, genres had crossed over. The challenge is less to revolutionize the medium but more to evolve it, in that respect there are a lot of actors and directors doing wonderful work. For example, Hitchcock was a pioneer in the thriller genre but it can be argued Fincher had surpassed him.
I just feel that you are giving the short end of the stick to contemporary actors and viewing yesteryear greats with a hefty dose of nostalgia. You are right that the summer blockbusters except on rare occasions don't require excellent acting credentials but a fair amount of mature movies that would be considered classics in years to come by are also being made now. The modern stars in some cases at least do measure up to their legendary counterparts and they are surely held to the same exacting standards by modern audiences if not more when ever the awards season comes around.
Have not seen a lot of Brando except The Godfather (plan to watch Apocalypse Now), I am not an American so have watched nothing but the most famous classics that came before 1980s, so can't really comment on what I think about him.
And I was not telling her who should be her favorite, I was just sharing my observations about the actors. I was not trying to argue but just discuss movies as a film lover, hope no one had misunderstood me.
I like Patrick Stewart. Has anyone seen his new show Blunt Talk?
Did you just cotton on to him when he became an American tv star? Or did you watch him in things like I, Claudius?
Aditya wrote: "But Crowe appearing in potboilers is generally a misinformed statement..."But you're not even quoting me accurately. I said blockbusters; and thus, the list you rattled off attests to the correctness of what I said. He does star in blockbusters; not arthouse films.
Quick Test: show me any roles he ever took where he played someone unsavory, someone demeaning; someone embarrassing. Someone *not* the hero or the protagonist. Roles in which he was not the good guy, the likeable guy, the fan favourite, the winner.
I can give you an apt comparison: Brando plays a naval officer in 'Bounty' and he interprets the role as an unlikeable poppinjay, a fop. Crowe plays a naval officer in 'Master & Commander' and plays..what else? A hero. The only type of role today’s 'movie stars' are willing to play, are ‘heroes’. Of course, it’s the gutlessness of the industry in general, as well as their own career interests –which are at fault.
2
Aditya wrote: "I can not claim to see all of Nicholson's work but have seen most of his acclaimed movies Chinatown, The Shining, One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest and was not impressed by any of them except Chinatown. ..."
By the time of ‘The Shining’ he was already coasting a little bit. His stardom was so huge at that point that he relaxed. Slacked off. He picked-it-up again later; but in any case ‘Shining’ is not one of his best. The bottom line is that you’ve seen just two (2) good Nicholson movies. (Remember this point later, because I will raise it again).
3
Aditya wrote: "I can relate with you saying that Depp mainly appearing in teen movies…like Public Enemies but they were universally bashed. ..."
Exactly. So you agree with the gist of my remarks on Depp. He made his fame by being ‘cool’. So if I’m correct on Depp, why am I so far off on Crowe? Because you really like Crowe?
4
Aditya wrote: "It's not that Depp or Nicholson is bad by any stretch of imagination but that both of them seem content doing similar roles rather than pushing the limits of their respective talents. ..."
Right. We’re ‘in sync’ here. We agree they’re both coasting. Shake! Except—as I said—Nicholson has more justification in coasting. He earned it; (or at least he might be justified in believing he earned it).
5
Aditya wrote: "I think it's nearly impossible to become a pioneer in any form of mass entertainment (movies, music, gaming) in the present day because most ideas had already been explored, genres had crossed over. ..."
This is very true for genre entertainment; but not in straight dramatic works. The grossest flaw of modern Hollywood is that it has run away from straight, mature, adult, psychological drama. Those type of works are called ‘arthouse’ and they died out a while ago. They didn’t have to; "serious" American films used to comprise many of the world’s greatest flicks ever made.
But yes, it is very hard to create new and original works of genre; genres themselves are repetitive. Unfortunately, they are the only kind of storytelling suited for children and teens; because they lack adult emotions or experiences. So that’s what we get in our theaters, and that’s why we get ‘stars’ (who are not by any stretch of the imagination, actors) like wrestlers, hip-hoppers and Ashton Kutcher.
6
Aditya wrote: "The challenge is less to revolutionize the medium but more to evolve it, in that respect there are a lot of actors and directors doing wonderful work. ..."
‘Wonderful work’ is using an extremely gracious ‘umbrella term’; and the generousity of the phrase shelters a lot of hack work. It grants forgiveness to a lot of schlock. Where do you draw the line? Are the paint-by-number seascapes found in motel bedrooms, ‘evolving’ the art of canvas painting?
7
Aditya wrote: "You are right that the summr blockbusters except on rare occasions don't require excellent acting credentials ..."
Dang straight. It’s an industry truism. On a blockbuster budget you can do endless re-takes and re-edits. Bad acting never halted a blockbuster release.
8
Aditya wrote: "but a fair amount of mature movies that would be considered classics in years to come by are also being made now. ..."
Except that we already know –we already see—that this is not happening. The American popculture audience today can’t recall a popculture film made even 5 years ago; much less 10. Movies are consumed, rather than savored; the 'buzz' dissipates after six weeks to replaced by more buzz for the next forgettable property. ‘Milestone’ movies are just not materializing. You yourself demonstrate this when you mention you don’t know barely but a few Nicholson or Brando films.
9
Aditya wrote: "The modern stars in some cases at least do measure up to their legendary counterparts ..."
Says who? No authority or critic I know of. Pick up any book on film and you won’t see this suggested anywhere. We're just not in an era where acting is emphasized; the films are action movies and cartoons. The last stars in the US really acclaimed for their acting were DeNiro & co.
Aditya wrote: "and they are surely held to the same exacting standards by modern audiences if not more whenever the awards season comes around..."May I politely ask, what are you basing these opinions on? Just the fact that every year there’s the same old phony, Oscar buzz and hullaballoo? Do all the commercials on TV, bamboozle you? That’s strictly to lure in the naive.
Almost all big awards shows are frauds. You must not have heard that the Oscars—especially the modern Oscars—are entirely debased and no longer a measure of anything. Oscars are awarded in backroom deals and on office couches.
You just can’t bring this kind of argument in, 'unknowingly'. Oscars have long been ‘outed’ as a sham and a joke. And how does the AMPAA even hold their heads up when they award statuettes to things like ‘Lord of the Rings’ and condone the recent widening of the number of category slots so that films like ‘Batman’ can be entered as nominees?
That’s why you hear the phrase ‘Oscar bait’ and why serious adult films (which used to make choosing an Oscar difficult) no longer appear in any number (in today’s USA) except for maybe 2 months per year. Otherwise, Oscars are awarded on the basis of fan popularity.
That’s why they recently added extra nominee slots. The AMPAA knows –these days—that they cannot go against some financial juggernaut, like they sometimes used to.
Aditya wrote: "Have not seen a lot of Brando except The Godfather (plan to watch Apocalypse Now), I am not an American so have watched nothing but the most famous classics that came before 1980s, so can't really comment on what I think about him. ..."Okay so, but you want to tell me my views are colored by sentimentality and nostalgia?
:P
Aditya wrote: "And I was not telling her who should be her favorite, I was just sharing my observations about the actors. I was not trying to argue but just discuss movies as a film lover, hope no one had misunderstood me. ..."We understood that, yes. No one (certainly not I) was 'reproving you'. I was just making a general statement that 'anyone’s favorite film' needs no defense.
By the way, it is a pleasure to hash over this topic with you; I don't often get the opportunity to talk movies anymore. So, although I'm very strident-voiced, there's absolutely no antagonism here. I'm just a feisty debater. I'm not disrespecting your views; just offering 'counterpoint'.
Not rated high enough! Gene Hackman is a wonderful actor. He has played in 100's of movies. The Chamber was a great one!
Aditya wrote: "For example, Hitchcock was a pioneer in the thriller genre but it can be argued Fincher had surpassed him. ..."This kind of reasoning frankly makes me wince.
How can it even be argued thusly? Hitchcock made over 80 films; Fincher has made a mere handful. Fincher is not a 'household word' as Hitchcock is. Fincher has made some movies; has had some successes—but that’s where the comparison merely starts.
Anyone can be a 'David Fincher' No one but Hitchcock was or could be Hitchcock. Many have tried. You've heard of Brian DePalma, right?
Fincher really does not have lasting fame, he has 'recent media buzz' fame which as we have seen, ebbs swiftly once the next Hollywood darling comes along.
Fincher is neither an auter or a virtuouso; he doesn’t take over other roles in the production (the way Hitchcock could); he is not the guy who sketches out entire movies beforehand so that even his notebooks are sought after.
He is financially successful, but not artistically significant; he isn’t 'producing an impact on everyone to come after', the way Hitch has and always will.
He’s made his name, yes—but we’ve already touched on the fact (if not, then we should) that modern fame is thin and suspect whereas a *classic* is something more than just transitory, ‘red carpet hype’.
Feliks, I think you're missing the point of this thread. It's not greatest actor, it's favorite actor.I really liked Nicholas Cage in 'Gone in 60 Seconds,' 'Face Off.' and the National Treasure movies.
I also think Matthew McConaughey did a great job in 'The Lincoln Lawyer' and 'A Time To Kill.'
And that's all this discussion is about.
Does that make either one or Harrison Ford or Bruce Willis (cited earlier) great? No. It just means that I liked their performances in the movies they did.
@Feliks, Just saw all your posts, thanks for taking the time to write back in such a detailed fashion. Anyway I am going to basically divide your opinions into two parts and reply accordingly.
First up the Opinions on which we both agree.
Feliks wrote: "But you're not even quoting me accurately. I said blockbusters; and thus, the list you rattled off attests to the correctness of what I said. He does star in blockbusters; not arthouse films."
You said summer blockbusters, I thought you were referring to the summer movies that are the mainly directed at families and carry the family-friendly PG-13 rating, released before the Oscar season starts (it usually starts from September, I believe). The only movie among all I had listed that would be called a summer blockbuster is The Gladiator (even then I am doubtful a prestige project like that one would have been released during the summer months) so I did not so much as misquote you as much as I did misunderstand you, though in my defense you did say summer blockbusters. Master & Commander might have been another Summer movie but I do not think it ranks among his best.
What you were actually referring to were the arthouse films or the critical darlings made outside the conventional big budget studio system, if that's what you meant, I would be the first to concede that no A-lister these days make those kind of movies. Even the so called Oscar Dramas are released with a huge buzz and an eye on securing as many Academy votes it can get.
Feliks wrote: "Exactly. So you agree with the gist of my remarks on Depp. He made his fame by being ‘cool’. So if I’m correct on Depp, why am I so far off on Crowe? Because you really like Crowe?"
No, you said teen movies in your initial post, Depp mainly does them, Crowe does not as simple as that (Pirates is a teen movie while A Beautiful Mind can no way qualify as one). If you had said indie movies/ arthouse films, once again I would have been the first to admit that neither Depp nor Crowe or any other big name actor for that matter of this generation seem interested in them.
Feliks wrote: "Dang straight. It’s an industry truism. On a blockbuster budget you can do endless re-takes and re-edits. Bad acting never halted a blockbuster release."
Completely agree it's not like some of the best summer action movies had great acting. Neither Arnold Schwarzenegger or Will Smith or Tom Cruise would ever be called great actors, they were more like famous stars but at least they had screen presence, nowadays some of the action stars like Vin Diesel not only lack basic acting talent but even a modicum of charisma.
I also agree with our mutual conclusions on Nicholson's career. I always maintained what you re-iterated that he 'coasted' from one role to another though you did add he might have earned that right a bit more than Depp. See no reason to doubt that claim, I feel he is better than Depp so it is eminently possible he had paid his dues before he started playing a larger than life caricature of his own greatest hit, the eccentric man with a crazy demeanor.
Feliks wrote: "Almost all big awards shows are frauds. You must not have heard that the Oscars—especially the modern Oscars—are entirely debased and no longer a measure of anything. Oscars are awarded in backroom deals and on office couches."
I wanted to bring up the scrutiny the award season brings, but yes if you are talking about the actual winners, I would concede some of the recent decisions baffle me. The Hurt Locker for one was more of a docudrama than a feature film yet it won an Oscar, 12 Years A Slave to me at least felt like an award given to appear politically correct rather than on any criterion on which movies are usually judged. Oscars also has got an unwritten rule where it refuses to recognize certain genres irrespective of the quality of the films they provide.
Now to the other part of your statements about which I vehemently disagreeFeliks wrote: "I can give you an apt comparison: Brando plays a naval officer in 'Bounty' and he interprets the role as an unlikeable poppinjay, a fop. Crowe plays a naval officer in 'Master & Commander' and plays..what else? A hero. The only type of role today’s 'movie stars' are willing to play, are ‘heroes’. Of course, it’s the gutlessness of the industry in general, as well as their own career interests –which are at fault."
How is DiCaprio playing the hero in Blood Diamond? Who is the hero in Nolan’s The Prestige or Howard’s Rush? How is Norton the hero in American History X? What about Jake Gyllenhall in the much overlooked Nightcrawler from last year? Does Crash (one of the more deserving Oscars in the last deacde) has a hero? Denzel Washington is the lead in both Training Day & American Gangster but he is never the hero. All the movies were rated very highly by critics and allof them released after 2000 except American history X. So as I said there is a fair no. of movies being made that are quite interesting in their own right.
Why assume heroes don’t need acting credentials? Neither does one dimensional hero nor does one dimensional anti-hero make a good character. What makes a good character is well rounded writing that gives enough material for its actors to shine & there are many ‘hero’ charcters which had allowed that in the last twenty years. Case in point Tim Robbins in The Shawshank Redemption, Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind, Tom Hanks in The Green Mile, Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society. All the characters are undoubtedly likeable mild-mannered realistic heroes yet they are characters that need sizeable acting chops.
Feliks wrote: "The grossest flaw of modern Hollywood is that it has run away from straight, mature, adult, psychological drama."
It seems that the first line is an overstatement. I am just listing the greatest contemporary directors with their own unique styles working presently Nolan, Cohen Brothers, Tarantino, Fincher, Howard not to mention old hands like Spielberg or Darabont. Among those listed I absolutely hate Tarantino's output for being all style & no substance, I don't like the Cohen Brothers either but I do recognize both of them especially Tarantino brings an unique flare to his projects.
Similarly if you are telling me you are not enthused by a particular director's vision I would put it down to different strokes for different folks but if you want to tell me that between all the talented directors working today with their own different styles nothing caters to your choice then it surely makes you the odd one out or the one with unrealizable expectations.
Feliks wrote: "Except that we already know –we already see—that this is not happening. The American popculture audience today can’t recall a popculture film made even 5 years ago; much less 10...‘Milestone’ movies are just not materializing. You yourself demonstrate this when you mention you don’t know barely but a few Nicholson or Brando films. "
I doubt whether my ignorance about Nicholson or Brando movies really emphasizes this particular point, I was born in 90s and if you want to discuss any of the bonafide classics of the 90s I would gladly do so like The Shawshank Redemption, The Shindler’s List, Good Will Hunting etc (I personally think Spielberg’s Amistad was much better than The Shindler’s List but I am listing only those which are considered classics via general consensus to keep the debate free of personal prejudices).
Feliks wrote: "Says who? No authority or critic I know of. Pick up any book on film and you won’t see this suggested anywhere. We're just not in an era where acting is emphasized; the films are action movies and cartoons. The last stars in the US really acclaimed for their acting were DeNiro & co. "
I guess we can go by Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic numbers unless you can suggest a more suitable source. I am sure I will see a fair number of modern movies that holds its own in the votes of both the critics and the movie-going public alike. I am not adding IMDB as it does not include critic votes & the movies listed on its “Best” list are more a measure of popularity than anything else.
Please post a link where a critic had said the majority of movies over a considerable period of time are ‘Cartoons’ or movies these days don’t require considerable acting chops. So in other words you think all modern movies are catering to the lowest common denominator and no modern actors are held to the stringent standards of the yore which means only old movies were good and only yesteryear actors were measured against quality competition.
That reminds me of the old timer who says “Listen Kiddo I come from a time when the air was clean and sex was dirty.” The smartass kid replies “Yeah I am also sure shit didn’t stink & pigs could fly.”
If you are telling me a whole generation had not thrown a single actor or director capable of going toe to toe with an yesteryear legend then I have to say the statement smacks of elitism.
Feliks wrote: " And how does the AMPAA even hold their heads up when they award statuettes to things like ‘Lord of the Rings’ and condone the recent widening of the number of category slots so that films like ‘Batman’ can be entered as nominees? "
See that’s the kind of attitude I referred as elitism, you bash a movie because it is a Batman movie. I personally thought The Dark Knight deserved both The Best Movie & Director award by some distance that night, had seen all its competitors except Milk & it stands head & shoulder above those movies.
Feliks wrote: "Okay so, but you want to tell me my views are colored by sentimentality and nostalgia?"
If you had told Brando is your favorite actor then it would not have been sentimental. If you had said Brando is the not only your favorite but also the best actor of all & backed it up with pertinent examples like you did then also neither would your opinion been sentimental or based on nostalgia.
But you are saying it is not only impossible for any present actor to surpass those dizzying heights that Brando scaled but also reach them. My argument had been Brando-centric but replace Brando with Hitchcock and actor with director and the point remains the same. Isn’t that the crux of your argument, generally speaking older movies are qualitatively not just merely better but much superior to all modern movies.
So forgive me if I start doubting the veracity of claims if you believe a whole generation had thrown up nothing but sub-par movies.
Let me dwell a bit more on those comparisons though I will take the example of Hitchcock rather than Brando as I am much more familiar with his work. I had not seen all of Hitchcock’s filmography but have seen some of his famous movies. My personal favorite is Dial M for Murder which I consider better than both Vertigo & Psycho, two of his most famous movies.
Now tell me how Psycho with its simplistic premise and a twist that modern B-movies would be ashamed of copying becomes a better work than Fightclub (a in-depth satirical look at machismo & male frustration masquerading as a thriller) or Seven that also has got a late twist as famous as Psycho. Or how the performances in Zodiac are much worse or any less three-dimensional than the performances in Vertigo? If you think Fightclub, a cult classic is not artistically significant or incapable of producing a major impact then you are being very harsh on it. It has been 15 yrs since its release & it is still considered a must watch for any contemporary male above 16. Hitchcock was a great director with intelligent plots some of which hold up damn well today but to suggest no one can compare to him does not make any sense.
Let’s move the discussion away from Fincher? What about Nolan? Isn’t he an auteur? Don’t you consider Memento to be inherently complex than anything Hitchcock had ever done and a pioneer of reverse story-telling technique? I believe Nolan is an unparalleled story-teller, and one of the best directors of all time & even better than Kubrick.
You were condescending about Spielberg making it sound like all he produces are action blockbusters. I am not overtly fond of his melodramatic prestige pieces like Saving Pvt Ryan & The Shindler’s List but what about movies like Amistad or Munich? I don’t know how can a movie like Munich be considered anything but catering to adults?
Feliks wrote: "Modern fame is thin and suspect whereas a *classic* is something more than just transitory, ‘red carpet hype’. ?"
What is transitory? If it means anything more than ten years then I will show you pointless examples of classics that modern actors & directors have produced. If it means a lifetime, 50 yrs or so, then your argument becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy which by nature dictates nothing but the old movies can be considered anything as classics and hence a proof of quality.
Anyway it took me the whole of my Sunday evening to write the post & it was nice discussing films. I would have to ask that you keep a bit more open mind about modern movies. I like Lumet, Hitchcock & the rest but to say none will ever stack up to them seems a bit biased. You can surely feel that the pre 1970s was the golden period for movies but that need not necessarily mean you have to diss anything that came in the last thirty odd years.
By the way on an unrelated note do you think of modern TV series can measure up to old movies (this being considered the golden period for cable shows)?
I can't just pick one...but off the top of my head...Jack Nicholson
Morgan Freeman
Joe Pesci
Patrick Swayze
Anthony Hopkins
Robin Williams
Brad Pitt
Ryan Gosling
Kevin Spacey
John Travolta
Peter Gallagher
Patrick Dempsey
Jeffrey Dean Morgan
Johnny Depp
BEGEEZUZ...I know I forgot so many but I don't know HOW I forgot Sean Penn...I'mSure I have a dozen more
Aditya wrote: "Now to the other part of your statements about which I vehemently disagree..."Finally taking the time to saunter back to this and wrap up these loose ends. Here we go! Two posts. Long ones. Items numbered for convenient recall.
1
Aditya wrote: "How is DiCaprio playing the hero in Blood Diamond?
etc etc etc..."
Oh brother. You may as well ask me to believe that Depp playing 'a pirate' indicates he is 'taking a chance' with his career. Playing an antihero is the same as playing a hero if you get top billing and if you're not being asked (at the same time as you get top billing) to do anything daring in your acting. Heck these joes wouldn't even be allowed to do any real acting, even if they wanted to.
Example: the Russell Crowe remake of "3:10 to Yuma". I mean, come on, seriously. How convincing to you are these obvious hoaxes? Its part of the way projects originate and get funding in the post-studio era we're in now. Regardless of 'suitability'--or talent--projects need some A-lister to get greenlit. All they need is a 'big name' no matter how silly the idea is--it will go through. Absolutely no creative judgement is exercised.
The agent is king; thus none of these roles had a chance of alienating the fanbases for any of these stars.
What I'm emphasizing to you is just one of the most basic and long-standing Hollywood truths: a 'star' is not necessarily an actor. (p.s. Leonardo Duh-caprio? That bloated fraud? Come on)
2
Aditya wrote: "Why assume heroes don’t need acting credentials? etc etc etc..."
Its not an assumption, its attested to by the actors themselves. Do you ever read any actor autobiographies? Its borne out by what actors themselves have always stated.
And you can also see it in the anatomy of the products themselves; in the takes and the angles and lengths of shots used to film action flicks. These days: no long takes; no monologues, no emoting. They're hurried through their lines; no performances are encouraged. Its the facts of modern productions. For movies where the audiences are kids, all they need/want are just a string of mannequins in one flick after another, "looking cool while they blow things up".
Its just the state to which the system has fallen. More so now, than was ever realized before, prior to the interlocking schema of media conglomerates and technologies which surround us now. It simply isn't acting-centric. If you can't realize this, its a case of not-seeing-the-priest-on-the-sugar.
Just remember one thing: classic Hollywood was an atelier system. Whereas--in today's Hollywood--hokey WWF wrestling stars can be A-List. Bodybuilders can be A-list. People sleep their way --or bluff their way--to the top of the A's all the time nowadays. Do they belong in any kind of A-list for their acting skills? Hell no. Ashton Kutcher, case in point.
3
Aditya wrote: "I am just listing the greatest contemporary directors with their own unique styles working presently Nolan, Cohen Brothers, Tarantino, Fincher, Howard not to mention old hands like Spielberg or Darabont...."
You believe these names you just rattled off have 'unique' style? Hardly. They're nobodies. Conformists. Yes-men. Houseboys. Plodders. Pimps and shills. Gutless 'go-alongs'.
Example: Chris Nolan strove for how many years trying to get his dream-science movie made? Afterwards, he admitted he hadn't even known or seen 'Marienbad'. Hadn't even seen it!? The film which takes all the audacity out of his own idea? How convenient.
You impress me though, for voicing even your mild criticism of Tarantino. I applaud you. From where I stand, the only praise I can give him is that he has not yet gone to 3D and I guess--with the way things are going--that's really saying a lot.
Otherwise, he is one of the two men most responsible for crippling the west coast.
Back to my larger point here: how can you not see that Hollywood today is eviscerated? Disemboweled? On its last legs? Woozy, reeling, and punchdrunk? In free-fall. Empty. Desperate.
Do you habitually read any books by the people who work in the industry? Did you at least read the Lucas/Spielberg 'warning' speech I posted? (...wait, maybe I didn't post it)
Anyway, don't you realize that todays audiences are frustrated to the maximum over the schlock Hollywood insists on pandering to them? Do you think we're in a hunky-dory state of affairs? When only two movies come out each year with mature/adult themes? Socially significant works? Do you think everything is A-Ok when there's twenty sequels and twenty remakes and twenty re-boots which form our annual movie diet? When they're making movies out of former kiddie cartoons like Scooby-Doo? Movies based on once-popular kiddie-toys? Its a travesty, a screaming-out-loud fiasco.
Do you ever read any books on the economics behind the present-day system which guarantees that Hollywood will not swerve from its currently disastrous policies? I do, and I can talk about it if need be.
4
Aditya wrote: "but if you want to tell me that between all the talented directors working today with their own different styles..."
Again, what "different styles"? They're indistinguishable from one another. As are most of today's bland, cookie-cutter, from-the-same-mold stars and starlettes.
Easy litmus test: how many stand-up comedians still do movie-star impersonations? Answer: none. Reason? Because they can't. Only Arnie and Stallone have recognizable voices; and that's the only difference they DO possess. Otherwise, how would you parody a Bruce Willis vs a Keannu Reaves? There's nothing to use. Pick any other two stars and you get the same result. There's no identifiable personality in these action-figures.
When you want to talk about truly unique performers, directors, or technicians, you need to go back in time to the studio star system and its aftermath in the 60s & 70s. Heck--in Hollywood's heyday, even each studio was distinctly different!
Don't believe me? Then, believe William Goldman. He said it first. Do you think he would not know what he's talking about? William Goldman. There's others I could name, but Goldman's statements are famous.
5
Aditya wrote: "but if you want to tell me that between all the talented directors working today with their own different styles..."
You use the word 'all' as if the system is giving us a 'horde' or 'crop' of talents we can barely keep track of, so that we have to use a word like 'all'. The names you've labored to cough up so far amount to chicken-feed. Small-potatoes. Just in terms of numbers alone. Do you realize that in the 1950s, each studio put out two movies per week? Top stars usually appeared in 4-6 roles per year?
But the real thing lacking in these appraisals is the much-needed acumen which discerns when something is a re-tread vs something actually new. None of what you describe (stars or directors) are pioneers or even innovators. They're simply running in the same ruts already laid down for them. They're re-gurgitators.
Its as if you were telling me what 'Madonna' did for sexiness without knowing who Mae West was; without knowing the names Marilyn Monroe or Jayne Mansfield or Bettie Page or Marilyn Chambers. Without realizing that any dummie can 'play the slut' and get sales.
You just have to understand what ***'schticks'*** are to support your side of this exchange. What 'gimmicks' are. From your remarks, I'm not sensing that you do. The principle of "things being used and re-used", which is what Hollywood excels at.
6
The other obstacle blocking a meeting-of-the-minds here is the absence of necessary discrimination in your comments. Applying some kind of 'sifting' or 'sorting' --earmarking real achievement from simply the background items. Evaluating singular works from merely the cheap, generic, hotel-brand bread'n'butter.
You perhaps haven't experienced enough variety in these products we're talking about, to go on in the vein you've been mining. You're telling me 'what is gold' vs 'what is pyrite' but without ever having swung a pick or seen a strike.
To explain what I mean: it sounds exactly the same to my ears as if you were telling me how great fast-food is without ever having eaten at a real restaurant. Or, its as if you were touting to me your fave hiphop DJs are without ever having sen a symphony orchestra or even just an actual rock band play live, with genuine accoustic instruments.
So I'll say again: look at a year like 1974 in movies. At least twenty whopping, gargantuan, impactful, game-changing, memorable, big-titted, smash films.
That's just the top twenty that make the top cull, too. Moreover, you can see that trend in just about every year preceding it going back to the 1930s (and only then do you start to see some shakiness as the studios were still refining their products).
7
Bottom line: none of the stars or directors you mentioned to me so far would have been suitable for anything but corny TV westerns in the classic era. Maybe even less. If I was wished to be cruel, I'd say that they wouldn't have been allowed to sweep up litter in any one of the big five studios of the Golden Age.
Faceless, bland, uniform, anonymous drones who comprise today's media--they loom large to you if you don't know what is 'precedent. Knowledge of precedent is not sentimentality, either. It's simply being an informed consumer. Its 'knowing what has gone before'.
If you do know "what's gone before", then you know that you're now looking at the 'thin end of a wedge' and the 'dregs of the barrel'. You'd know that these phony stars you admire so much, are all in place merely because they were invited into a vacuum left by the departure of actual talents. They're here because there's no alternative. They're the leftovers.
Post #2 more coming up later today.
At the moment:Benedict Cumberbatch
Also like:
Martin Freeman
I also have a crazy crush on Rupert Penry-Jones from Whitechapel.
I like Colin Firth too. He was wonderful in THE KING'S SPEECH.
Betsy wrote: "I like Colin Firth too. He was wonderful in THE KING'S SPEECH."I love Colin Firth. He was also wonderful in A SINGLE MAN. Still haven't checked him out in RAILWAY MAN.
I love Colin Firth in EVERY movie that he was in.
Gregory Peck in CAPTAIN NEWMAN, M.D.Tiny Curtis & Larry Storch in the same movie mentioned above.
While I DO like Colin Firth very much, I think I need to go with Johnny Depp. He's not a perfect actor and some of the movies he's been in weren't that great, but we're talking actors, not movies. He has a depth of character that is not afraid to go out on a limb and play parts in all genres. Some he fits better than others, but trying something that is "out of character" for me is the sign of a great actor.
Probably Jack Nicholson or Morgan Freeman. That's a tough one.
Robert De NiroAl Pacino
Humphrey Bogart
John Wayne
Gregory Peck…good guy, bad bad guy, light comedy, drama, Westerns…and that voice!
