 
|
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 |
4.235.207.244
It's like auteur overwhelms all else for some posters, with actors being almost interchangeable.
Too bad.
For me, I can appreciate brilliant directorship, cinematography, writing, editing, etc. but, perhaps, greatest of all enjoyments is seeing a truly charismatic human being fleshing out a great role.
Many of the greatest actors, luckily, have given us more than one characterization to underline their supremacy.
Brando, Bogart, Penn, Grant, Stewart, Davis (Bette!, though Judy is a fine actress), Belmondo, Bergman...
One needs only watch "Barry Lyndon," a pretty good film that, had Kubrick been a bit more discerning, could have been great (Ryan O'Neal? Puhleeese!).
Follow Ups:
Dr. Strangelove had the best ensemble IMO. But with Kubrick the material determined who the actors would be. I thought O'Neal fit the part he was playing ok.As far as Stewart, he was a likable guy, but he was one dimensional. I'd take multi-dimensional actor like Jack Lemmon over one dimensional guys like him, Cooper and Wayne, any day.
Sometimes, if your one-dimension is good enough, that's all you need. Cooper and Wayne (Gary was more dimensional than you think) played strong men convincingly. The Wayne of Red River, the vicious thug, was a masterful performance. Try not to let politics decide?
Now, Lemmon...there was a guy who was weak-looking. Good for comedy but as a serious actor he never convinced me. A wimp.
The Prisoner of Second Avenue, also.
Not at all. He was a fine actor and not only for comedy, see his work in " The Apartment ".
He could act.
Lemmon's a comic genius in The Apartment. Jim Carrey rips off half his comic ticks from Lemmon.
I would more say that he was a comic and a tragedian at the same time.Think back, one yes was laughing the other triste.
And with Walter what a pair!
Remember sweet Carole bringing on the set of Mr. and Mrs Smith real cows?
I agree! But all my reference books are packed away so I must rely on faulty memory. But I can assure you I love the performances in "The 39 Steps," "The Man Who Knew Too Much," "The Lady Vanishes" etc.The expression on the face of "Mr. Memory" (sic) when he hears the words "What is 'The 39 Steps'?" is unforgettable. The 2 character actors creating their "jolly good show" characters in "Lady Vanishes" (and would repeat them in many other films for other directors!). The young girls in peril (sigh).
For all Hitchcock SAID about actors, he had a knack for putting the right actor in the right part. Just don't ask me about Bob Cummings...even Hitchcock could make mistakes in a 60-year career!
Well I would not even say it was his fault engaging actors like Bob Cummings but more some time and studios ( think Selznick ) imperatives.
And one should mention that he kept a lot of actors again and again in his films, from his " English period " until the very end.
He could create a world full of magical romantism, almost Victorian in a way, and with such an humour and brio who could be and was very symbolic.
In his kind he is the best.
Yes, I heard she did that when Hitchcock told her that "actors are like cattle!"But notice how Hitch's best films (and I was about to except "Frenzy" but that film really depends on the "Enghish-ness" of its cast) depend on which cow, er, actor he places in his lead? Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant, Henry Fonda, Joseph Cotten, Ingrid Bergman, Tony Perkins, and of course, Grace Kelly. Who else could have played the roles they did? Hitch may have thought actors were cattle, but you see he tried to always have the best cows in his films!
Well you cited only the actors of his US period, all but Cary Grant Americans.
See the one he had in his first English period.
Not bad!
n
an Irish terrorist nor did he convince me of his "indian-ness."
He seems to be talented at picking the wrong roles for his talents.
Perhaps the reason that the "auteur overwhelms all else for some posters" is the state of acting in films today. In the list of actors you have drawn up I see only one who is working today: Sean Penn, an actor who I have not been excited by since his early performances in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," "Bad Boys," and "Racing with the Moon." There are many actors and actresses who can excite with one or two performances. Yet look at the way Grant changed from his early roles with Mae West to the star of "To Catch a Thief" and "North by Northwest." How many actors and actresses improve on their first impression today?
At Close Range; Dead Man Walking.
I think he was excellent, also, in 21 Grams and Mystic but he was allowed by the directors to go a bit over the top. That's a problem with some stars when they get older, their reps intimidate directors.
Start a thread about great actors working today and I'll contribute. I have LOTS of candidates.
...Mark Ruffalo in Jane Campion's 'In The Cut'.
Out-Brando'd Brando without falling into mimicism.
Chris Cooper comes to mind. Each role shows a completely different side of his skill. His breadth is astonishing.
More seriously, I couldn't agree more. Lone Star is an amazing movie and his performance is magnificent. I liked him as well in American Beauty, with all its faults (outweighed by the strenths, in my book).
Liam Neeson is another underrated guy: consider
Rob Roy, Shindler's List, and several other roles.
Jurgen Prachnow, though pretty much wasted since he came to Hollywood, still deserves immortality because of Das Boot.
Spacey and Malkovich are also extremely talented. Benecio del Toro in Usual Suspects, 21 Grams, Traffic. Very strong leading man.
Ralph Fiennes for Schindler's, Quiz Show (?), and (though I hated the movie) The English Patient.
Jet Li, Beat Takeshi, and the Fat guy from Crouching Tiger, to mention a few Asians.
Denzel, Morgan Freeman, Samuel Jackson...to name a few A-As. And how about Travolta???
Jeff Bridges belongs in this list somewhere, as well.
I know I'm forgetting about half the guys, too. Actually, this is a pretty good age for movie stars/actors (males, anyway).
Of actors that are pretty good on this list! Uncle! Uncle!Morgan Freeman. Would love to see him in a slimy role like he had in "Street Smart" again. Pauline Kael asked if he was the best actor in America today. He probably is.
Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges are good, too. Travolta was great early in his career ("Carrie" thru "Blow Out") and during his comeback ("Pulp Fiction" "Get Shorty" "Michael")...not so sure about his work today but you are right, can't count him out. Denzel is good but holds himself back (except in "Training Day"). Would love to see him play a man whole, with good and bad points, in a film better than the one where he took the hospital hostage (can't think of the name off the top of my head).
The others? Good performances here and there. A couple of years of good work followed by stuff that leaves me cold. Fiennes, Malkovich, Neeson all good examples here. It will be interesting to see del Toro's work in the next 2-3 years now that the hype is not as strong.
Sean Penn just leaves me cold. I know, lots of critical acclaim but I prefer his early naturalistic work over the stuff he does today. Would love to see him play a man who comes from wealth who has never had to work...oh wait a minute! That's who he is! He is that every day...except in his films! Brando came from a well-off family too (ranch, investments, and a, what, 9-room apartment shared with his sister and mother in the 40s in Manhattan), but he could convey anyone in any situation. It's hard for me to see Penn doing the same. I could be wrong here, there may be a "beam in my eye" preventing me from seeing his genius, but what can I say?
One name you didn't mention: Jack Nicholson. Now there is an actor who tries to do something interesting in every role he plays.
Meg Ryan and Nicole Kidman are at least trying to do "challenging" roles. Cate Blanchett is pretty good.
But, Freeman and Travolta aside, I say let's wait another 5-10 years before we place these guys in the same league as Brando, Bogie, Stewart, Grant, etc. A couple of lit matches ain't quite a flame, IMHO.
Thanks for reminding me of some good things from the last 15-20 years! Going over your list brought an unexpected, "Hmmm, he's right" a couple of times!
Blanchett, Kidman...I'd add Winslet, as well.
I don't think Meg Ryan belongs in the list, though she did shine in ONE film, something "....Courage".
Got to add Uma to this list, also.
Didn't mention Jack N, or DeNiro, or Pacino for obvious reasons...EVERYONE considers them great---and they're approaching geezerhood (the A-A actors I mentioned are getting long in the tooth also but are oftentimes neglected when discussions of great actors take place).
I placed Meg Ryan on my list of actresses because she is at least trying to do something other than "Meg Ryan" roles. Uma Thurman is terrific in Tarantino's movies...will be looking forward to seeing her next work.But you are right...once we get past the obvious geezers...there are several good actors doing good work when given the opportunity.
and get back to us. I can't believe you weren't convinced of his rural roots in "Dead Man Walking," too.
C'mon, forget his parentage, he can't help it...
Two of the films you mention I agree with..."Fast Times" and "Bad Boys". I would add "Racing to the Moon" to that list too, and he plays a small town character in that one.As I said before, maybe I have a beam in my eye when I see Penn, but I still believe he "froze" into a "actor" somewhere after 1984. There are moments in "At Close Range" and "Colors" and even in the later movies. But for me, they are just moments, not a whole characterization that fits the warp and woof of a movie. I only mention Penn's background because he does play "rural", "dangerous", "mentally retarded", and I was noting that he stays far far away from anything that he truly is. Why? What would he show us?
Who knows? Penn has years of work left, God willing. So perhaps he will do film(s) that will bring me in agreement with you! I certainly am not anti-Penn (and it's definitely not a political thing), I am just cold to him. I will always be happy to read opinions that offer clues as to why he is so critically acclaimed.
an amazing performance. He grows, in the space of an hour or two, from a boy to a man. Walken delivers one of the most amazing evil characters in film history, as well. See HIM in Comfort of Strangers if you want to see him portray another very interesting strange personality. Both films are extremely under-rated.
Why Sean doesn't portray well-educated or rich yuppie kids? There aren't too many starring roles of that type and who'd care if there were????
BTW, Bob Dylan came from a fairly priveleged background and sang hobo songs pretty well...Pete Seeger also wasn't a poor guy.
Yes, Bob Dylan said he had traveled all over the country on the rails like a hobo or tramp. And he sang the "hobo" songs, too. For about 3 years. As soon as he started writing his own songs, the "hobo" thing was over. "Crimson flames tied through their ears" just doesn't convey that hobo experience very well, y'know!What I was trying to point out is that Penn does not play a wide range of characters. Even Bogie was a science-fiction vampire! Look at the wide range of characters Brando essayed. It just seems to me that Penn limits himself to a narrow range of character portrayals. I brought up his background to point out that he is certainly very aware of other kinds of life in these United States. Maybe after the movie with Madonna, he just doesn't get offered those other kinds of roles! But just for example, one of my favorite Alec Baldwin roles is the husband in "Beetlejuice". When I say that to friends, they are shocked to remember that, yes, that was Alec.
Chris Walken...I...love that...guy! A very good actor who can also dance. I wonder how many actors could do his monologue in "Pulp Fiction"?
What about "Sweet and Lowdown" and "The Game"?
Three roles out of a career that spans 25 years. But perhaps I should not use range of roles as a factor in looking at Sean Penn's career. After all, between 1915 and 1936, how many different roles did Chaplin play? (Although what Chaplin did and what Penn does today are two vastly different things). Sean Penn just lost me somewhere in the mid 80s. He has done some things that have interested me since. But they are just moments, flashes here and there. One could have said the same thing about Brando at one time. But then Brando did "Reflections of a Golden Eye," "Candy," "The Nightcomers," (the last two not good films but very good performances in them) and a couple of other films we all know about.
Penn is not an actor I look forward to seeing in a movie at this time. But who knows what is around the pike? "All the King's Men" might be interesting to see, and as a Louisiana resident who remembers the end of the Long/anti-Long days, I want to see it. As I said, Penn hopefully has years to go to give many performances and reignite my earlier opinion of his work.
After all, I'm from Louisiana, and Robert Penn Warren based the original novel on Huey Long. Until Russell Long retired, 99% of the politics in this state revolved around whether you were "Long" or "anti-Long." Edwin Edwards was originally seen as a young campaigner with no ties to either camp who could get things done! When your senator has been named "Long", you have an interest in things like "All the King's Men"...no matter WHO the star is!Get ready, Sean, 'cause here I come!
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 ]
