|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 31, 2019 17:30:28 GMT
Jamie Foxx in Django Unchained by Sam Jackson, Leonardo DiCaprio and Christoph Waltz.
Foxx is great in Django. One of his better performances. But Tarantino deliberately weighted the deck in favor of the supporting roles, in terms of dialogue and characterisation. Django being the strong and silent type always risked being a bit overshadowed by these verbose and eccentric oddballs. I suspect the real reason Will Smith opted out of playing Django was because he recognised it. Considering all that, Foxx came out of Django pretty well.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 31, 2019 17:38:59 GMT
Jamie Foxx in Django Unchained by Sam Jackson, Leonardo DiCaprio and Christoph Waltz. Foxx is great in Django. One of his better performances. But Tarantino deliberately weighted the deck in favor of the supporting roles, in terms of dialogue and characterisation. Django being the strong and silent type always risked being a bit overshadowed by these verbose and eccentric oddballs. I suspect the real reason Will Smith opted out of playing Django was because he recognised it. Considering all that, Foxx came out of Django pretty well. I still maintain that Django is Tarantino's least interesting protagonist in terms of writing and characterization. I don't think it's because of his strong and silent nature, but because I don't really think Foxx was the right fit for the part. Nor do I think Will Smith would've been, either. My personal choice would've been Michael K. Williams, who I think has that larger-than-life charisma and screen presence that Django needed to really make him stand alongside the others.
Foxx wasn't ruinous or anything, but the supporting cast (including the un-mentioned Don Johnson) really demolished him on-screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 31, 2019 17:49:54 GMT
There are so many debates on who is the MVP of Miller's Crossing (Finney? Turturro? Polito?) and I hardly see anyone go to bat for Gabriel Byrne, who's never been better.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 31, 2019 17:52:02 GMT
Jamie Foxx in Django Unchained by Sam Jackson, Leonardo DiCaprio and Christoph Waltz. Foxx is great in Django. One of his better performances. But Tarantino deliberately weighted the deck in favor of the supporting roles, in terms of dialogue and characterisation. Django being the strong and silent type always risked being a bit overshadowed by these verbose and eccentric oddballs. I suspect the real reason Will Smith opted out of playing Django was because he recognised it. Considering all that, Foxx came out of Django pretty well. I still maintain that Django is Tarantino's least interesting protagonist in terms of writing and characterization. I don't think it's because of his strong and silent nature, but because I don't really think Foxx was the right fit for the part. Nor do I think Will Smith would've been, either. My personal choice would've been Michael K. Williams, who I think has that larger-than-life charisma and screen presence that Django needed to really make him stand alongside the others.
Foxx wasn't ruinous or anything, but the supporting cast (including the un-mentioned Don Johnson) really demolished him on-screen.
Wait until you see him in an ensemble role in Netflix's new When They See Us - I'll review it later at some point but he's straight up a revelation in it...........and not only larger than life with screen presence in general, but here he rather does that thing that I almost never see in such an actor and is a test I have for such actors too - can they turn that off...........here, he diminshes - he becomes smaller than life too. Almost impossible for a charismatic actor to ever pull off, he's legit something to see in this....... |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 31, 2019 17:54:08 GMT
I've always maintained Foxx was very good as Django. You can theorise this or that actor being an improvement, but the way it was written, outside of Denzel or the Ghost Of Marlon Brando playing Django, I don't really see it (and Michael K Williams is all wrong. You need to buy Django as a romantic lead because of his motivating relationship with Kerry Washington, and Michael K Williams, for all his attributes, cannot pass as a romantic lead). Tarantino got exactly what he wanted out of Foxx' s performance. It was an Eastwood type performance in the The Good, The Bad And The Ugly, where this silent asskicker does his thing, while all the colourful freaks and villains chew up the scenery. Eastwood is still iconic, but he's mostly outdone by shinier performances for many (till his iconography reached such a point that he started getting more retrospective credit for that performance, like Foxx should).
Nobody knows how to manipulate performances more than Tarantino. If he wanted Foxx/Django to be the most interesting, dynamic character onscreen, he would have done so. I think he wanted that dynamic that he got. Just like if he wanted the supporting characters in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood to steal the show, he would have made it happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 31, 2019 18:08:32 GMT
Nobody knows how to manipulate performances more than Tarantino. If he wanted Foxx/Django to be the most interesting, dynamic character onscreen, he would have done so. I think he wanted that dynamic that he got. Just like if he wanted the supporting characters in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood to steal the show, he would have made it happen. Not really though - a writer/director can only do so much - and that's what his talent allows him to do - that has limits. Maybe Bruce Dern can't steal the show in OUATIH because QT can't write that character as well.........I mean, I get your point and I agree Tarantino can configure and manipulate performances through the writing and he's great at it, but the actor is not a puppet at his mercy either. Even Tarantino - who is a wild egomaniac - has spoken rapturously about what Waltz did for the role in IB and that it was outside of what he created for him........and it's very illuminating to hear. I believe the term he used was "Waltz gave me my movie"......... |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 31, 2019 18:11:48 GMT
I've always maintained Foxx was very good as Django. You can theorise this or that actor being an improvement, but the way it was written, outside of Denzel or the Ghost Of Marlon Brando playing Django, I don't really see it (and Michael K Williams is all wrong. You need to buy Django as a romantic lead because of his motivating relationship with Kerry Washington, and Michael K Williams, for all his attributes, cannot pass as a romantic lead). Tarantino got exactly what he wanted out of Foxx' s performance. It was an Eastwood type performance in the The Good, The Bad And The Ugly, where this silent asskicker does his thing, while all the colourful freaks and villains chew up the scenery. Eastwood is still iconic, but he's mostly outdone by shinier performances for many (till his iconography reached such a point that he started getting more retrospective credit for that performance, like Foxx should). Nobody knows how to manipulate performances more than Tarantino. If he wanted Foxx/Django to be the most interesting, dynamic character onscreen, he would have done so. I think he wanted that dynamic that he got. Just like if he wanted the supporting characters in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood to steal the show, he would have made it happen. I think you aren't giving Williams enough credit. I've seen him play characters with a romantic bent to them, even with his rough 'n' tumble exterior, and he's certainly capable of it. Meanwhile, I don't think Foxx and Washington had much in the way of chemistry; one of the major failings of Django, to me, is how little Broomhilda actually resonates as anything more than a symbol rather than a character. Foxx also portrays a much more modern sensibility than he really ought to here; he seems much more like an actor playing a gunslinger rather than the real deal. Part of it is the character's posturing in the first half ("Look the part, be the part", to quote Prop Joe), but for me it never really comes together the way it should.
For what it's worth, I do think Will Smith would've been even worse. He can't stop slyly winking to the audience with every movie he does. Foxx was as good as he could be with the role on the page, but he's easily the least interesting major character in a movie where he should've been a dominant force to equal Waltz/Jackson/DiCaprio/Johnson.
I also don't know if I agree with your comment that "Nobody knows how to manipulate performances more than Tarantino." I'd say that he's probably a director who does this less than most; what's on the page is largely what you get on-screen. The only time where I feel a character sang off the page more than what was there was Hans Landa. (Maybe Jules as well, but I read the script for Basterds before the film was actually made, so I actually got to experience the progression of that character from the page to the rumored DiCaprio casting to the finalized casting of some unknown actor from Austria to the finished product.)
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 31, 2019 18:28:15 GMT
I disagree on the Tarantino take. At times he's been known to be hyper-specific with actors on set or in rehearsal. To the point of acting out the way he'd perform something, then asking them to do what he did.
There's a reason Tarantino likes taking actors written off as has-beens or seen as minor leaguers (like Robert Forster and to a lesser extent Pam Grier) and manages to cpax career best work out of them. It's not just in his writing. It's in the hyper-specificity of his direction of actors.
You think Travolta in Pulp Fiction rediscovers that level of cool just by playing what's on the page? No way. Tarantino manipulates his look, his dance moves...all on set or in rehearsal.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 31, 2019 18:32:11 GMT
I disagree on the Tarantino take. At times he's been known to be hyper-specific with actors on set. To the point of acting out the way he'd perform something, then asking them to do what he did. There's a reason Tarantino likes taking actors written off as has-beens or seen as minor leaguers (like Robert Forster and to a lesser extent Pam Grier) and manages to cpax career best work out of them. It's not just in his writing. It's in the hyper-specificity of his direction of actors. I think Tarantino likes to take actors he's either grown up with (Grier, Dern, Travolta, Carradine) or actors who never quite hit the big leagues as they likely should have (Forster) and write parts with them in mind, and he's got such a great knack for writing showy characters that normally would go to more marquee names and yet he generally casts who he wants, rather than kowtowing to studio interference. He's one of the few directors who has that freedom. And he always has struck me as very much a controlling force in terms of what is on the page, much like the Coens, and I never got the sense he enjoys a lot of improvisation on set. I may be wrong on that, but that's just how he strikes me. I think that's not really "performance manipulation", as much as it is "adherence to what's written." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 18:34:40 GMT
Although Rosie Perez got all the recognition for Fearless, Jeff Bridges gave a career-best performance in the same film.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 31, 2019 18:35:40 GMT
I disagree on the Tarantino take. At times he's been known to be hyper-specific with actors on set. To the point of acting out the way he'd perform something, then asking them to do what he did. There's a reason Tarantino likes taking actors written off as has-beens or seen as minor leaguers (like Robert Forster and to a lesser extent Pam Grier) and manages to cpax career best work out of them. It's not just in his writing. It's in the hyper-specificity of his direction of actors. I think Tarantino likes to take actors he's either grown up with (Grier, Dern, Travolta, Carradine) or actors who never quite hit the big leagues as they likely should have (Forster) and write parts with them in mind, and he's got such a great knack for writing showy characters that normally would go to more marquee names and yet he generally casts who he wants, rather than kowtowing to studio interference. He's one of the few directors who has that freedom. And he always has struck me as very much a controlling force in terms of what is on the page, much like the Coens, and I never got the sense he enjoys a lot of improvisation on set. I may be wrong on that, but that's just how he strikes me. I think that's not really "performance manipulation", as much as it is "adherence to what's written." Like I said, actors who have actually worked with Tarantino have said he is willing to perform something his way, then ask them to do it. That's on set manipulation of a performance, not just asking an actor to interpret the lines. People tend to forget that Tarantino also fancied himself an actor. How good an actor is up for debate, but he's hands on with his performers. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 31, 2019 18:39:19 GMT
I think Tarantino likes to take actors he's either grown up with (Grier, Dern, Travolta, Carradine) or actors who never quite hit the big leagues as they likely should have (Forster) and write parts with them in mind, and he's got such a great knack for writing showy characters that normally would go to more marquee names and yet he generally casts who he wants, rather than kowtowing to studio interference. He's one of the few directors who has that freedom. And he always has struck me as very much a controlling force in terms of what is on the page, much like the Coens, and I never got the sense he enjoys a lot of improvisation on set. I may be wrong on that, but that's just how he strikes me. I think that's not really "performance manipulation", as much as it is "adherence to what's written." Like I said, actors who have actually worked with Tarantino have said he is willing to perform something his way, then ask them to do it. That's on set manipulation of a performance, not just asking an actor to interpret the lines. People tend to forget that Tarantino also fancied himself an actor. How good an actor is up for debate, but he's hands on with his performers. I guess it comes down to one's definition of "manipulation." Your description of it comes down to a rigidity of what the director wants because that's what's on the page, whereas I take the definition to mean using an actor's pre-existing energy and force and guiding that in the work itself (i.e. Phoenix in The Master, which is almost nothing like the character as written). I guess if you view that adherence as manipulation, then he fits the bill. |
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on May 31, 2019 22:20:15 GMT
Gabourey Sidibe in Precious.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 31, 2019 22:22:51 GMT
Gabourey Sidibe in Precious. 1. WELCOME BACK! 2. Sidibe > Mo. |
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jun 1, 2019 0:56:05 GMT
Apocalypse Now. Sheen is pretty darned fantastic... but Duvall is an all-timer here.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 1, 2019 0:59:29 GMT
Apocalypse Now. Sheen is pretty darned fantastic... but Duvall is an all-timer here. To say nothing of Hopper. |
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jun 1, 2019 1:12:10 GMT
Apocalypse Now. Sheen is pretty darned fantastic... but Duvall is an all-timer here. To say nothing of Hopper. And Brando... and Forrest. |
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Jun 1, 2019 1:17:25 GMT
Gabourey Sidibe in Precious. 1. WELCOME BACK! 2. Sidibe > Mo. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by Christ_Ian_Bale on Jun 1, 2019 1:27:25 GMT
McDormand is at her comedic best in Burn After Reading, with most of the praise falling on Pitt and Malkovich.
|
|
demille
Full Member
Posts: 941 
Likes: 306
|
Post by demille on Jun 1, 2019 4:17:10 GMT
Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet and Gene Hackman in Unforgiven are the first ones coming to mind. Despite how great the leads are, it's for them that I keep coming back to those films. Winona Ryder was great in Girl, Interrupted, but Angelina Jolie completely stole the show (and the awards) from her with her performance. Agree with the ones mentioned so far except maybe Clifton Webb in Laura. I found his performance rather unnatural and mannered. There's a certain thing about some films and performances of this period that I find a big turn-off, which is when actors are standing up rigidly and deliver their lines as if they were robots, sometimes too fast and almost overlapping other actors' voices. It's been many years since I saw Laura, but I remember feeling like that about Webb's performance. I think Clifton Webb's character was supposed to seem unnatural and his manner robotic. He was a decadent and an aesthete who found the mundane, natural world repulsive and was obsessed with ideal beauty and the intellectual. I think his acting successfully portrayed his character as an eccentric, who can also be read metaphorically as a specimen of a past/different world; a world at odds with the ideology of 1940s middle class USA. His character was in stark contrast to Dana Andrew's, who was the common man. Andrew's wasn't interested in intellectualising beauty, which he found self-indulgent and boring; his ideal was in having a beautiful, down to earth wife and a middle class domestic existence. Clifton Webb's intellectualism, along with his physical body and manner, were repulsive to him. |
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,678 
Likes: 2,111
|
Post by cherry68 on Jun 1, 2019 4:47:09 GMT
Jean Reno and Gary Oldman in Leon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Jun 10, 2019 1:08:43 GMT
Can't believe I forgot...  Ray Winstone in Sexy Beast! |
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jun 10, 2019 7:45:02 GMT
Timothy Bottoms in Last Picture Show is an epitome of this. He's pretty good himself but thoroughly outmatched and overwhelmed by the obscene amount of talent around him. Leachman, Johnson, Bridges, Brenna, Burstyn, Shepherd -- poor Bottoms barely registers in that lineup.
|
|
