 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
the leading men gone? Don't know about you, but I'm fairly tired of seeing pentagenarians (?) and sexagenarians as leading men successfully courting women of their granddaughters' ages. But, at least Hackman, Redford, Ford, Pacino, De Niro, etc. can act. How about the current crop?
Ben Affleck (AAAAAAAAAAfffffleccck): earnest, but more a tv kinda guy. You don't have to look too closely to see him really straining in his role, i.e. "Changing Lanes."
Matt Damon: an example will suffice. Blown off the screen by Jude Law in the (damn my memory) movie where Damon killed Law to assume his identity (also starred Gwyneth P)
Brad Pitt. So self conscious of his looks he seldom attempts a leading role. Seems to be saying "forget I'm a hunk and look how much personality I can show you." He does do a good job with smaller roles, but, outside of "Se7en," he ain't done squat.
Edward Norton. Maybe the only one with the acting "chops." Here again, likes to do the cutesy stuff. "Primal Fear" showed his power. "American History X" (wasn't that the title?) confirmed his skill.
Tom Cruise. I think he's got the skill, but he still looks like a little boy. His acting did improve after his master class w/Kubrick...but he can only do so much with his stature and persona.
Follow Ups:
Johnny Depp? Donnie Brasco, Ed Wood, Gilbert Grape, etc? More range than any youngster has exhibited. And yes, AuPh, I enjoyed "Gods and Monsters", too, but Brendon is going to have to stretch a little more to prove himself an "actor" (which he may be, for all I know, but please, no more "Bedazzleds"!). I usually enjoy John Cusack, also, but he usually plays pretty much the same character - with the possible exeption of "Bullets over Broadway" in which he basically played Woody Allen (!).But I agree, the young generation is made up of mostly "Movie Stars", not actors.
with the possible exception of Edward Norton, I think Depp has great chops. But he ain't a leading man. Leading men have to have that manly appeal that both sexes find attractive. Harrison Ford is a leading man, Dustin Hoffman is not. Romantic and tough should, IMO, strongly be present.
John Malkovich is, oops, as great as any of our middle-age actors. But not a leading man (that pesky lisp) and rather effeminate mannerisms doom him for that category.
And, no. Woody Allen ain't no leading man, though he is the star of his vehicles quite often...
I've now decided to not worry about who's staring. I now look to see who's directing. I would love to see Lynch get a hold of Tom Cruise. Until then, forget it. Most of the movies today remind me of a neighborhood of track homes.
all the actors and actresses today are vert capable. In the right films, they can all do very well. The limitations are on the films and the directing.
heard something about the ages of todays movie-goers: it drops off steeply near age 35, with peaks in the late teens,ergo: Hollywood doesn't want leading men.
the money is in leading children
> > > > Hollywood doesn't want leading men.
the money is in leading children < < < <While it is true, the movies now are pro-teen, fortunately male actors up to 60 can still be paired with women of half their ages, and still economically viable.
Are you forgetting the latest generation of "A" list actors like Russell Crow, George Clooney and Kevin Spacey, or are they still too mature by your standards for leading men. Well, how about Vin Diesel, Tobey McGuire or Brendon Fraser (yes, Mr. Fraser can seriously act; if you've ever seen "Gods and Monsters" you'ld know it!). BTW, I couldn't help but notice that you've left out ethnic/international artists of note; I'm sure it's just an oversight, but there are many talented actors coming from every race and culture. Strong ethnic leading men include Jet Li, Antonio Banderas and Denzel Washington among many others.As for Tom Cruise. yes, his acting is a mixed bag, but it looks like you want it both ways when you criticize his youthful appearance (i.e., he looks like a little boy) after unceremoniously blasting "pentagenarians/sexagenarians" as leading men for courting women of their granddaughters' ages. Besides, let's face it, older men dating voluptuous younger women is a male fantasy (i.e., unless you're a teenager ...grin), that isn't likely to go away anytime soon? And that, my friend, is the very thing which sells tickets at the box-office [Well, it sells tickets to us old farts, anyway! ;^)]!
Cheers,
Audiophilander
Now, now, AuPh, you put George Clooney in the same sentence with Kevin Spacey on perpose - didn't you?Hoe cruel of you!
Harrison is dating Calista (180 degrees from "voluptuous"!).
Clooney, Spacey, and Crow..."A list?" C'mon. I said "leading men." Clooney ain't got that star...something. Reminds me of Tom Selleck. Great on small screen: good looking, self-deprecating which makes the looks palatable to guys---but missing a key ingredient: star quality. Same problem with Matthew McConnaughey (jesus, what a name to spell).
Russell C: he can act. He can also chew up scenery better than anyone, even Robin Williams.
Kevin Spacey: don't think he quite qualifies as a leading man in the traditional sense. Too quirky. American Beauty and Seven and Usual Suspects prove he's one of our best actors, but that ain't what I meant by leading man.
Denzel. Overacts waaaaaay too much. What Halle did at the Oscars, he does on screen way too much. That being said, he can be spectacular when he's muted (maybe by the director?) as in Devil in a Blue Dress (damn these senior moments; it was something like that...).
Morgan Freeman and Samuel L. Jackson I think are Spacey's equals. But, like Kevin, they don't have the leading man thang.
Antonio "Material Girl Playtoy" Banderas? Oh, c'mon!
Jet Li? A passable actor, for a martial artist.
Hey, at least you didn't list Nicholas Cage!
.
What does age have to do with appreciating film ?
Hi,
this happens with every generation. As you get older, you are less easily impressed. You think you're the same, but you're not. You older, wiser(hopefully) and the adventures (and adventurers) that thrilled you as a kid no longer send the heart racing. There are always exceptions, but that's just the way it is.
Thanks for letting me know what's wrong with me.
your statement has many exceptions. It may be true that many of my my my generation (the same as Roger Daltry) have lost their critical faculties, but not necessarily have I.
Question Mr. Late: seen any Marlon Brandos lately? How about Elizabeth Taylors? OK, how about Lawrence Oliviers? Pacinos? De Niros?
By the way, many of the same things that floated my boat as a young man still do: women; sailboats; film, etc.
Yeah, you can say every generation disrespects the art or cultural offerings of the ones that follow, but sometimes such negativity has merit. Painting after Jackson Pollock. "Serious" music composition post-Stravinsky, Mahler. Strauss. Film, post-Kubrick, Bertollucci; Altman. Rock, post-70's (pick your poison there...). Ballet post Balanchine, Martha Stewart, Nureyev, Baryshnikov..well, you get the idea. The idea that the productivity of all generations is somehow equal is interesting, but not borne out.
Hi,
my gut would agree with you. Seriously. But each generation has it's own muse, it's own path to follow. I have a bit of envy that life has blessed them so generoulsy; and pity for them for the challenges they won't face. What a strange world we give to them. You know, I also remember my grandfather and his friends having this sort of conversation. And men of the Korean War era, and so it goes.
I agree with your first statement. Over the last five years, this does seem to be the case. As for Ben, always look for those three very revealing words about a movie, "starring Ben Affleck" -- and stay away. As for Matt, it seems he's always playng to the camera. Sort of like what Burt did in the Smokey and the Bandit movies, but less "in your face". Your memory problem -- The Amazing Mr Ripley. Brad's a mixed bag. For some of his material, you're spot on. Other times his performance in a movie, like Se7en, is very good. Did you see 12 Monkeys? That was a special character. Maybe he should stick to movies with numbers in the title? I have to agree that Ed's the best of the bunch. Primal Fear was a superb example of his ability. It was as if he became that character -- isn't that what acting is supposed to be? I disagree on the funny stuff. While I'd rather see the dramatic roles he's done, he can do the comedy -- not as well, but he can do it. Tom's a flip-of-the-coin. He's got the same problem that Brad does. Sometimes it's there and sometimes it's not. One thing about Mr Ford. When Steven and George finally stop playing around and get serious about the next Jones movie, he needs to be ready. And I don't care if he's 85 when they come around or if Britney's his love interest...
The film was "The Talented Mr. Ripley" not the "The Amazing Mr. Ripley."Actually, I thought Matt Damon was pretty impressive in this film. Playing a chameleon is no small task for an actor. If he doesn't get the big head from being a "star" and burn out, I think he will go the distance.
The same could be said of Russel Crowe, who appears to be fundamentally unteachable. Whatever he doesn't figure out for himself, he isn't going to learn. So, far, I have to admit, he's figured out quite a bit.
Still, comments on Matt stand.
He at least is taking on more interesting parts than his compadre, Mr. Affleck. I'm not overly impressed with his acting yet, but who knows? I think he has yet to better his performance in "Good Will Hunting".
Russell Crowe is the best of the bunch. He has been fortunate to get some genuinely meaty roles.Everyone else is just acting at acting and being an Actorrrrrr.
But it isnt that there arent any actors. There are lots of actors out there. I feel it's just that they lack that special element...
charisma...of star quality that's missing. Everyone gets to be a......Star....these days, but we dont really know these people who are Personalities. This is more a product of our hype ridden media.In the olden days they built up an image and protected it. Today actors are like everyone else, so why should we find them interesting.
We are assaulted with all of these pretty faces that have nothing behind them. Plasterboard. We really know too much about them, and like we thought we knew them. Their roles defined their personality.
Today, Everyone wants to be a....Star...and but they want their privacy too. When they "go public", they want to "be like everyone else. That's why we really dont "know" these people and what we do "know" makes them possess human foibles like everyone else. Who could really care about people like us ? We are Boring.
Norma Desmond was right, the pictures got "smaller", and it made the actors "smaller".
We go to the movies to escape our reality and be entertained, dont we ?
Who wants to be entertained by seeing people "like" us ? I dont.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
