Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,658
Likes: 4,357
Member is Online
|
Post by Archie on Jun 4, 2019 21:01:14 GMT
Goodman in Barton Fink blew Turturro off the screen. Such a crime he wasn’t even nominated.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 4, 2019 21:05:03 GMT
Not sure I understand what you are trying to do here. So saying that Hackman or Winn are better than Pacino in their respectives movies would be comparable (as ridiculous) as saying that O'Donnell is better than Pacino in Scent of a Women ? Really ? It's THAT bad of an opinion for you to use some kind of sarcasm ? I don't get it. And just a reminder, this is about our favorites actors, not a hate thread or something like that. It was a joke. But I'll get serious and say its a little crazy to me that someone can watch a movie like Scarecrow and walk away from it saying that one of the actors "outshined" the other. For me, its a movie that is as great as it is because both actors work so perfectly together. Totally different characters, incredibly different performances... but perfect together. Not sure how it's crazy to think Hackman was simply better in Scarecrow. My reasons are simple. I thought Pacino was fine, but for me it was a fidgety, overly fussy performance that put me too much in mind of a Dustin Hoffman impression circa Midnight Cowboy, but not as good and not particularly original. Hackman was just effortless by comparison, while I could see the effort or strain in Pacino's work to be the "quirky" one. Simply came away more impressed by Hackman. It really isn't that deep. No one is saying Pacino outright sucked.I thought he was perfectly fine, if a bit strained and try-hard. But what they are doing is different enough for people to have a definite preference without it being a big mystery.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 4, 2019 21:16:42 GMT
Maybe but you have to do more than just say to me ___________ was better than ________ otherwise put the thread in the lists or something which leaves no room for discussion - are we not allowed now to discuss performances in an acting thread on the acting board now - wtf - since when? I'd encourage you to discuss the performances, hence why I didn't quote you talking about what you felt Pacino brought in Scarecrow for example, but the hoops you were jumping through trying to explain why anyone could prefer Winn's ("something you've never had before") or Hackman's ("comfort food") performances just struck me as some horseshit you were throwing out there because you couldn't fathom someone thinking '70s Pacino got outshined. Stick to talking about the performances, why you prefer or at least put Pacino's acting on equivalent terms and don't think he's outshined, etc. instead of trying to pseudo-analyze why someone else might think differently - which, I repeat, is something that could go the other way but nobody cares (nor should they) to deconstruct you as an audience member loving Pacino since they'd rather just talk about the performances. Fair enough but if you go back and look at the thread - there are THREE mentions of Kitty Winn that do not assess her performance at all, not once. There is no one who offered assessment of Hackman besides mine but a very very cursory one from pupdurcs. You may think that's "pseudo-analyzing" but I think it's pretty legit analysis actually with a whole lot of truth to it. ...........difference of opinion then I guess one man's horseshit is another's profound insight.........no harm.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jun 4, 2019 21:36:33 GMT
While I wouldn't quite say Anne Baxter is superior to Bette Davis in All About Eve, she's certainly on equal footing which is impressive enough as is.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 4, 2019 21:38:34 GMT
It's happened with Daniel Day-Lewis more often than one might think.
1993: Pete Postlethwaite blows him off the fucking screen in In the Name of the Father, and that's saying something. DDL is majestic in that movie. I also prefer Ryder to him in The Age of Innocence.
1996: Joan Allen and Paul Scofield in The Crucible, but I don't think DDL is bad in this by any means. I just think Allen and Scofield have the better characters.
2009: Marion Cotillard stole the show from Daniel Day-Lewis in Nine and had to do so much of the heavy lifting. True, she had the better character and the emotional weight of the movie at her back, but then, I don't think DDL was as ruinous as others seem to think.
2017: I'd also say that Krieps and Manville challenged him in Phantom Thread and surpassed him, depending on the viewing . . . but he is no less mighty in that film, and having seen it several times, I can't decide who comes out on top consistently.
So yeah, DDL is usually the top dog in his movies, but that's generally because of the types of movies he makes where he seldom is able to relinquish the stage to another actor because, well, he almost always is the stage. But he's usually got ace talent working against and alongside him that is more than up to the challenge.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jun 4, 2019 21:52:25 GMT
Sorry pacionyes ... yes, Phantom Thread is the perfect example of this to me: DDL is amazing, one of the very best performances of his career and such a high note to go out on (presumably), he's so damn watchable and it's easily one of the funniest cinematic performances in recent memory ... and yet he's surprisingly out-shined by both Krieps and Manville. Krieps gives one of the most confident and fiercest performances I've seen of any actress of her age/experience, a true force to be reckoned with, manages the vulnerability of the character beautifully along with her more cunning side -- she's a true natural talent, a mesmerizingly seamless (sorry, bad pun...) performance, one of the very best of this decade (can she please get more roles soon??). And Manville turns in what is probably my favorite performance by a supporting actress in at least the past few years ... she does more with her eyes alone in that role than most actors can do with their entire bodies throughout their careers. Her demeanor is just staggering, her stare is iconic. Together the three certainly make up some sort of holy trinity, and I hate saying that Krieps and Manville are "better" than DDL because that seems to undervalue his performance, which I would never want to do. He is truly phenomenal ... but Krieps and Manville both leave an even deeper impression on me, a near-impossible feat when sharing the frame with a GOAT in his top form. To piggyback off this, I just wanna say I think one of the most remarkable things about DDL's performance in Phantom Thread is how incredibly generous his performance is, how he gives his Krieps and Manville a lot to work with from his acting choices in particular scenes - and which scenes highlight this are entirely in tune with where the otherwise domineering character is narratively, such as that tremendous final scene. I have a ton of admiration for actors that can be so generous in bringing out the best in their co-stars and looking to elevate the entire piece through character dynamics rather than just looking to get theirs as an actor. DDL's reputation normally focuses on the big, showy, dominant aspects of his character work but I felt Phantom Thread was the perfect distillation of how great he is at really being in tune with his scene partners - Lincoln is another very good example though it still has the necessary ornamental qualities that feel more at the forefront.
|
|
|
Post by Leo_The_Last on Jun 5, 2019 4:10:00 GMT
Some interesting thoughts on here.
I think Viced put it best (not only because he likes De Niro, but that certainly helps 😉), the concept of "outshining" your acting partner is problematic, especially when talking about this topic in cases where you already have two terrific performances. Then it is kind of futile. In the end it comes down to a question of taste and temperament of the viewer.
Of course it happens, one actor clearly being better than the other, but that's mostly to the detriment of the movie, so also a fault of the director. I love DDL, and this is in contrast to what mike has written above, which I think is also true in a lot of cases I think, but I always had the problem with him that I thought he wasn't always very generous to his co-stars. I don't think it's about ego or anything like that, but more a product of his working method. There are examples when it didn't happen, like in In the Name of the Father (there was so much warmth in the other performance, the way it was set up and in the way it was executed, you can't outshine that), or in Phantom Thread. It's obviously always also a question of how a narrative is structured, a character is written and positioned within the story etc. In Phantom Thread's case I think it helped that Krieps had a kind of no-bullshit attitude about the imposing duo PTA/DDL, a lot of confidence about the way she saw herself and her character. I always had the feeling that during the marketing of that movie that she somehow didn't feel satisfied about her working relationship with DDL, that it kind of felt like a question of dominance when it came to the actual performance. She never expressed it like that though as far as I know, so I could be wrong, but that was just my impression. But in terms of outshining anybody, I don't think someone was outshined by anybody on that film, or any film where the performances are on such a high level. You might prefer someone over the other out of different reasons (like De Niro/Walken; De Niro/Pacino; Pacino in Needle Park & Scarecrow etc.), but that has nothing to do with outshining I think. The movies would suffer for it.
Look at GONY. DDL is such a beast in that film, in the way the character is presented, in the choices he made as a performer. It's a tremendous, all-time level performance. Yes, DiCaprio probably wasn't quite ready for that part back then, but I don't think ANYBODY would have fared much better doing that role, and the movie is worse because of it. De Niro I believe has always been a very generous actor, had he stayed on board we might wouldn't have gotten a Bill the Butcher as brilliantly played, but the movie itself could have maybe worked better overall.
Back to the question of the thread: I think De Niro wasn't on Depardieu's level on 1900. I think he himself was never quite satisfied with his work on that picture, and mostly because he couldn't find a way into Bertolucci's working method. I think he kind of felt lost in that movie and it shows (I still like the performance overall though).
Question: Can anyone on here imagine Daniel Day-Lewis successfully working on a project with a male actor on the level of Dustin Hoffman for example? I mean a guy who thinks about himself being at least on DDL's status as an actor/legend/star, not there to serve Daniel's prefered working method. Someone who's probably older, guys like De Niro, Pacino, Nicholson, Duvall, Hackman etc. I would love to see that and it could be magic, I just somehow can't see how it could work without someone walking away from the project during production 😄
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 5, 2019 6:05:05 GMT
That was a really great post Leo_The_Last - extremely insighful and said a lot of things I was trying to convey but in particular it's often people find the other character more interesting not that they themselves were better actors - it's not a competition etc. Regarding the DDL question at the bottom: I don't think so because of the way he constructed his career and his method of working and the roles he took too. DDL really didn't become "that" DDL until 2002 before that he wasn't on a stratospheric nutjob level where we would ask this. He is routinely called one of the GOAT actors and by my count he has 5 of those performances to base that on (everything he's nominated for except Lincoln which is great but lesser relative to the others). That's precisely how small and specific the GOAT level discussions really are - just 5 film performances or so (and lots of other fine work too, rarely "off"), and he was in my top 10 ever, 3rd among British actors ever, but on some level that is just 5 performances too, so these talks are unique to him in a way. At a certain point he isolated himself for good (work) and bad (other potential work)..........he in effect typecast himself too. He couldn't attempt to do some things and be that guy and his limited choice in material, who he would play opposite, who even could play opposite him, direct him, etc. were all issues for him. He kind of "had" to stop and walk away actually I think - he was playing and is still playing the non-existent role of greatest thespian ever and he's starring in and directing that fictional one man show in his mind .......... Question: Can anyone on here imagine Daniel Day-Lewis successfully working on a project with a male actor on the level of Dustin Hoffman for example? I mean a guy who thinks about himself being at least on DDL's status as an actor/legend/star, not there to serve Daniel's prefered working method.
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Jun 5, 2019 6:59:07 GMT
I have yet to watch a film where Gian Maria Volonte is outshined. He's an acting beast with an incredible screen presence, that doesn't leave room for others to breathe. But I'll say that Lee Van Cliff in A Few Dollars More actually gives him a run for his money.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jun 5, 2019 7:16:32 GMT
What I think would be very interesting is a younger DDL working alongside a younger De Niro or someone of his caliber. DDL was famous for working by "the method". He used to transform into his characters, live like them, act like them. That was what Bobby also used to do in his early days. Plus transform his body for the needs of a role (DDL did it a few times too). It would be great to see something like this back then (say late 80s-early 90s).
If he had worked with Jack or Dusty I guess these guys would just do their thing. They wouldn't try to "elevate" their acting to outshine DDL. They wouldn't feel the need to. Especially in their later days, past their prime. But having Bobby and Daniel "competing" to each other, that would be something special.
I hope you get what I mean, my English is not very good...
And btw, I don't think DDL was outshined in the Name of the Father, I rank this performance in his top 3 ever (my left foot and TWBB being the other two). I agree Ryder (and most of sll Pfeiffer) were a little better in Age of Innocence.
|
|
|
Post by fiosnasiob on Jun 5, 2019 7:19:55 GMT
Ok Viced, fine if it was just a joke and not you mocking others people honest opinions. And I get what you guys are saying about the "outshined" thing that's why I was cautious about it in my original post. But comparing/chosing/picking is part of the human nature and it's often even more exciting to do it when both actors deliver, when it's supposed hard to pick, that's why its been done so many times about many great movie's pairing, who's better (or who you prefered) in Autumn Sonata, in The Godfather, in The Master, in Streetcar, etc... it's fun. It's not a competition and actors play different parts but that's the way it is, all year around, most of "us" talk, get excited about awards and their "Best Actor" trophies, should we boycott them ?
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Jun 5, 2019 7:57:18 GMT
The first thing to spring to mind was Bale and Batman. It occurs especially in the latter two Batman films, as Nolan fell into the trap that people making Batman films always seem to fall into, and that is making the villains more interesting than Batman. I could understand this if Batman was a dullard like Superman, but he is actually one of, if not the most interesting hero in this whole fantasy land of comic book stuff. In these films, Bale is immediately on the back foot, as those playing opposite his hero are at the fortunate advantage of having much better material to work with. You can of course try of elevate the material, and he does his best, but often he was spewing shoddy exposition, and in the second film in particular he had by far the lousiest role. Things get better for him in the third outing, but Hathaway and Caine still outshine him. Recently I thought Julia Roberts nailed it far more than Streep in August: Osage County. I loved them both, but I felt Roberts gave the more consistent performance. I don't know if working opposite Streep inspired her, but it was the best thing she had done in for frickin' ever, and reminded me why I think she's brilliant. I have a good few other examples of this with Streep, but that's the main one. Pitt has been a long time favourite of mine too, and I do enjoy him a lot in Se7en, I even happen to think his 'What's in the Box' moments are great, but damn, if Morgan Freeman isn't taking him to school for the whole film, and Kevin Spacey is in a different stratosphere to him in the car scene. As I said, I do think he's very good in the film, but the two lads are something else entirely.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 5, 2019 11:10:50 GMT
Question: Can anyone on here imagine Daniel Day-Lewis successfully working on a project with a male actor on the level of Dustin Hoffman for example? I mean a guy who thinks about himself being at least on DDL's status as an actor/legend/star, not there to serve Daniel's prefered working method. Someone who's probably older, guys like De Niro, Pacino, Nicholson, Duvall, Hackman etc. I would love to see that and it could be magic, I just somehow can't see how it could work without someone walking away from the project during production 😄 To me, DDL working with someone of that generation/status hasn't been a remotely interesting or salivating prospect in over 20 years. Massive respect to all those guys, but almost all of them are long past the peak of their powers and viability (not to mention like Hackman and Nicholson, retired). The Dustin Hoffman of today or the Robert DeNiro of today is not going to be going toe-to-toe with DDL still at the peak of his capabilities in some sort of generational battle of the titans scenario. At best, they'd end up serviceable support acts (like DeNiro supporting the likes of Bradley Cooper or Christian Bale in David O Russell pictures) while DDL did his thing. The closest thing we've seen to that happening at the right time ( a GOAT level legend/actor of DDL's vintage and stature going head to head with an equivalent legend from that 70's era) was Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman going toe to toe in Crimson Tide. And that was a magical coming together of the finest of those different era's and two-pronged acting masterclass from both men. But it was all in the timing. Hackman was still at the top of his game and able to demand equal lead billing to a rising hotshot like Denzel in 1995. If they came together in 2005, Hackman would likely have to settle for a supporting role to Denzel at the peak of his stardom, and it would be nowhere near the same thing. It'd probably end up being be closer to Robert Duvall having a supporting role in John Q, while Denzel acted everyone (including Duvall) off the screen. So yeah, it's about timing and that time has passed. Everything is too weighted in favor of DDL now. Most of those actors today (who aren't out of the game)would simply be his support acts.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jun 5, 2019 11:50:38 GMT
They were both outshined by Manny the chauffer... None of them but Seymour Hoffman! Hoffman was actually good in it. Gabrielle Anwar gave the performance of her lifetime.
|
|