Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2019 1:11:56 GMT
Who do you feel is generally the stronger actor?
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jul 17, 2019 1:22:44 GMT
Great comparison because they both arose to stardom at around the same time, but my answer is Kidman. A thousand times Kidman. No contest at all, and I'm saying that as someone who loves Winslet.
Thing is, Kidman's early 2000s run was peerless (at least one knockout performance every year for a few years) and she's been on an upswing this past decade while Winslet has kind of fallen off and she never rose to Kidman's highs in the first place. Also Kidman is one of the greatest actresses ever and Kate can't quite compete with that.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 17, 2019 1:23:58 GMT
Kidman....by far. Kidman's range is close to peerless, as is her ability to psychlogically inhabit a role. She can do almost anything at this point (after Aquaman and Destroyer, two genre and character types I never previously saw her in that she nailed with ease, it's fair to say it's harder to ask what she can't do).
Winslet has just felt more and more limited over the years to me. She's like Jodie Foster in a way. Both very good, but they used up all their tricks by the time they hit their 40's. I'm not sure Winslet is capable of surprising me anymore, though I'd love to be proved wrong. Kidman is constantly surprising.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2019 1:28:27 GMT
Great comparison because they both arose to stardom at around the same time, but my answer is Kidman. A thousand times Kidman. No contest at all, and I'm saying that as someone who loves Winslet. Thing is, Kidman's early 2000s run was peerless (at least one knockout performance every year for a few years) and she's been on an upswing this past decade while Winslet has kind of fallen off and she never rose to Kidman's highs in the first place. Also Kidman is one of the greatest actresses ever and Kate can't quite compete with that. Well, I think Winslet's best performances certainly stand with Kidman's best, but I am genuinely saddened by her recent rut - I'm hoping her upcoming project with Saoirse Ronan will put her squarely back in the conversation. She's been really unfortunate lately with the Allen/Polanski controversies (seriously, as often as Kidman works, how has she never worked with either of them?!)... I think the fact that Kidman lives in the States might also help her, career-wise (at least marginally)? What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jul 17, 2019 2:56:44 GMT
Great comparison because they both arose to stardom at around the same time, but my answer is Kidman. A thousand times Kidman. No contest at all, and I'm saying that as someone who loves Winslet. Thing is, Kidman's early 2000s run was peerless (at least one knockout performance every year for a few years) and she's been on an upswing this past decade while Winslet has kind of fallen off and she never rose to Kidman's highs in the first place. Also Kidman is one of the greatest actresses ever and Kate can't quite compete with that. Well, I think Winslet's best performances certainly stand with Kidman's best, but I am genuinely saddened by her recent rut - I'm hoping her upcoming project with Saoirse Ronan will put her squarely back in the conversation. I hope so too. Ammonite is definitely one of my most anticipated film next year. I think what's worked so well for Kidman is just settling into this indie niche she's currently in, which is really the only option to keep at least semi-relevant for actresses who attained that peak stardom in their 20s and 30s. She's been really fortunate in her pick of projects and directors lately (unlike Winslet). I do hope Ammonite and French Dispatch get Winslet out of her rut but I prefer Kidman's bulk of work more anyways.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 17, 2019 3:07:10 GMT
Winslet slightly almost a draw even - Kidman who just got a puppy you know @tyler - will always win polls she's popular and easy to like but she loses to Winslet based on peak work here imo.
Kidman has great work too - To Die For and Birth in particular I love but she's got dud work that's really bad dud work not just "off" stuff but stuff that suggests actor limitations - Fur and recently Destroyer a misguided turn for 2 examples.
Winslet is in a rut but she'll be fine and she was great in Wonder Wheel dud movie or not (underrated I'd say) - she's 9 years younger, has an Oscar and Emmy like Kidman, yet has 3 more Oscar nods. Kidman does stage which is a big deal .......these 2 are a closer comparison imo than Kidman vs. Blanchett imo who is a level above both - all fine actresses of course.
|
|
demille
Full Member
Posts: 941
Likes: 306
|
Post by demille on Jul 17, 2019 4:13:53 GMT
I like both, but Kidman.
Kidman has consistently demonstrated the ability to peel back the artifice of a character to reveal the maelstrom of complex emotions that are at play beneath the surface. This is why she is best when she plays psychologically damaged, traumatised and troubled characters. It is the act of deconstructing a character's (emotional and psychological) being that she excells at and that demonstrates a profound insight into existence.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Jul 17, 2019 5:27:08 GMT
I find both quite overrated but Kidman has more undeniably fantastic work (The Others, Dogville, Big Little Lies season 1 etc.) so her.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jul 17, 2019 5:28:06 GMT
Both have done some terrific work. Neither are in the top 5 of their generation.... but Kidman slightly. Adams, Swinton, Morton, Cotillard, and.... Blanchett I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Jul 17, 2019 7:31:50 GMT
I really like Winslet so much and she has done some truly great work, but Kidman is there or thereabouts as my favourite actress of the last 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jul 17, 2019 13:40:17 GMT
I guess I'll be the strong minority here but imo Winslet is a far better actress. Kidman is very talented and all but Winslet is superior (talent-wise, artistically, comparing best works and performances).
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 17, 2019 14:04:46 GMT
I guess I'll be the strong minority here but imo Winslet is a far better actress. Kidman is very talented and all but Winslet is superior (talent-wise, artistically, comparing best works and performances). It's very interesting because these 2 (or 3) actresses reveal different gaps in assessment than you see in any other female group OR male group - first none are American. We say this is a good poll and it is - I even said it earlier and it was pretty close to me with Winslet ahead atm imo but again ............she's 9 years younger and has 3 more Oscar nods - almost double. 9 years is a whole lot......we'd never do that for men or any other female class I'd argue and if anything age gap matters more for females too. But that group of 3: Kidman/Winslet/Blanchett are a force of their own and destined to always be compared - whole different rules apply to them in awards/recognition/comparison.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jul 17, 2019 14:13:56 GMT
I guess I'll be the strong minority here but imo Winslet is a far better actress. Kidman is very talented and all but Winslet is superior (talent-wise, artistically, comparing best works and performances). i f anything age gap matters more for females too. But that group of 3: Kidman/Winslet/ Blanchett are a force of their own and destined to always be compared - whole different rules apply to them in awards/recognition/comparison. That's the whole juice of the age difference. At the age of 44 an actress has much more career opportunities than a woman aged 53. Don't bring Blanchett in the conversation, I can't be objective when it comes to her
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 17, 2019 15:22:50 GMT
Winslet should be concerned that her career slowed down at such an early stage in middle age. It's brutally competitive in that early to mid 40's bracket, and she's fallen behind the likes of Amy Adams, Jessica Chastain and Charlize Theron in casting circles, and they are all about the same age. Even Rachel Wesiz, at one point maybe unfairly regarded as a poor man's Winslet seems to be taking opportunities that once would have gone Winslet's way, and seeing her reputation grow.
Like I said, it's a very similar scenario to Jodie Foster. She had a dominant periold (two Oscars, being regularly called best actress of her generation, only younger American actress comparable to Streep etc etc). Foster was worshipped. Then reality set in, the level of competition stepped up, her own limitations eventually got exposed and it was sort it for her. She's still very respected and always will be, but the claims once made about her seem to have been very much of the moment. Winslet is like Foster in that she started out young with Oscar recognition and kept that regard for a fair while (and since Winslet Oscarbait lime crazy, she is much more likely than Foster to get nodded again). But I feel like Foster, Winslet''s rep is in a real danger of falling behind actresses with less impressive Oscar records. Not just Kidman (that's already happened). But the likes of Theron and Weisz as well.
It's kind of interesting as well that Kidman is a revered stage actress in Winslet's own country (Kidman's awards record in UK theatre is phenomenal for a non-Brit), while Winslet has often been called out in the UK for not doing theatre at all. Winslet really could have kept her rep elevated when the film career was going slow, by doing acclaimed stage runs. Another career misstep (Foster is another one who avoided stage. Something to think about). The two most fertile periods of Kidman's career were kickstarted by hugely acclaimed stage runs.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 17, 2019 15:51:37 GMT
Winslet's career has slowed down because she got some bad projects but she hasn't fallen behind anyone really and did great work in bad projects that's the key to how you know she'll be fine - she has more Oscar nods than anyone - as much hardware as anyone (except Blanchett who like Kidman is way older), more nominations than anyone in her age group or not - tied with Blanchett (in some cases 3X as many as her age peers, 4X as many BA as Adams who is close to her overall). 3 more nominations than Foster had etc.
Judi Dench character roles await her I'm quite sure.........careers are like that they go up and they go down ..........we'll see how it plays out - that's part of the fun.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 17, 2019 16:19:15 GMT
Awards are great, but they don't decide someones ultimate legacy alone. Body of work, continued cinephile and audience support are factors among others that decide a legacy. Greer Garson has 7 nominations and 1 Win (like Winslet)...there are tonnes of actresses with far less impressive Academy records whose careers are held in far higher esteem today.
For women, it's partly/mostly the fault of Meryl Streep. When you have a woman who is going to end her career on likely 25 + nominatiions, 4,5,6 7 all start to seem paltry by comparison and roughly in the same ballpark. So while it's an impressive achievement for Winslet to have 7 nods, the existence of Streep kinda dilutes it for women (unless you have 4 Oscars like Kate Hepburn). Winslet could easily be another Garson for this era. Who do film buffs, critics and cinephilies revere more today? Greer Garson with her 7 nods and 1 Win or Barbara Stanwyck with her 4 nominations and 0 competitive wins?
Stanwyck is a still revered GOAT contender. The body of work is undeniable, despite the so-so Oscar record and never winning competitivly . Garson is nowhere near as highly regarded as Stanwyck today. Kidman might as well be Stanwyck (both played legendary femme fatales after all) to Winslet's Garson (except Kidman has a win). So it's not always as black and white as counting the Oscar nods (I'd say it actually makes more of a difference for the men, since no man is so far in front as Streep that it makes everything else seem pituful. There at least feels like there's something at stake when men rack up Oscar nods. No woman is catching Streep)
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 17, 2019 16:38:17 GMT
Oh I don't think awards matter in the sense that they are the be all and the end all of anything - for either gender - but I mentioned them because it gives an example how in almost any reasonable metric Winslet sees herself as distinct from almost all peers except Kidman and Blanchett.
She doesn't have any metrics where she has to take a backseat to anyone (on film), she's so great she's compared to 2 actresses almost 10 years older - I think she feels she can take some time raise her kids and be a wife - ie I'm Kate Winslet, I've achieved a lot, its okay.
I don't think she's Greer Garson, Barbara Stanwyck or Meryl Streep. She's herself but if she evokes anyone it's Dench at least that's where I see her going at some point.
She's only 43 so that's a bit away so .......we'll see, she acting with the "next Kate Winslet" at some point in a big film so there's that too, she has a big rep and I think she acts like she has it and earned it too and she manages her career like it.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Jul 17, 2019 17:11:38 GMT
Awards are great, but they don't decide someones ultimately legacy alone. Body of work, continued cinephile and audience support are factors among others that decide a legacy. Greer Garson has 7 nominations and 1 Win (like Winslet)...there are tonnes of actresses with far less impressive Academy records whose careers are held in far higher esteem today. For women, it's partly/mostly the fault of Meryl Streep. When you have a woman who is going to end her career on likely 25 + nominatiions, 4,5,6 7 all start to seem paltry by comparison and roughly in the same ballpark. So while it's an impressive achievement for Winslet to have 7 nods, the existence of Streep kinda dilutes it for women (unless you have 4 Oscars like Kate Hepburn). Winslet could easily be another Garson for this era. Who do film buffs, critics and cinephilies revere more today? Greer Garson with her 7 nods and 1 Win or Barbara Stanwyck with her 4 nominations and 0 competitive wins? Stanwyck is a still revered GOAT contender. The body of work is undeniable, despite the so-so Oscar record and never winning competitivly . Garson is nowhere near as highly regarded as Stanwyck today. Kidman might as well be Stanwyck (both played legendary femme fatales after all) to Winslet's Garson (except Kidman has a win). So it's not always as black and white as counting the Oscar nods (I'd say it actually makes more of a difference for the men, since no man is so far in front as Streep that it makes everything else seem pituful. There at least feels like there's something at stake when men rack up Oscar nods. No woman is catching Streep) I just wanted to add that I don't think Kidman was hated, but I do think that for whatever reason, the Oscars just didn't take to her until after she divorced Tom Cruise. Some of it might have been bad timing because 1995 and 1996 were competitive years for Best Actress, and she was left on the outside despite winning a Globe for To Die For and picking up a few critics awards or mentions for both To Die For and The Portrait of a Lady. Still she was nominated for a Globe for Billy Bathgate, and usually she's the kind of nominee, young beautiful rising star that they like to nominate yet she still missed. Then of course, she finally has her big breakthrough, and while the combination of Moulin Rouge and The Others probably helped her the year before she had The Hours and of course sympathy for the mess of her divorce, there's a chance that she missed out on a nomination because she couldn't be nominated for both movies at the Oscars. Then she missed for Cold Mountain. I don't know that she was snubbed, but she had just won and was coming off another year where she was getting lots of praise for her work, yet she missed to surprise nominees Keisha Castle-Hughes and Samantha Morton. Castle-Hughes did get a lot of attention that year and made it into SAG, but Morton was really a surprise. They might have loved In America, but the only notable nominations she received were a Critics Choice nomination, where Kidman was also nominated, and a SAG Ensemble nomination and Spirit nomination. Then she went through a bit of slump. She gets another nomination for Rabbit Hole, but then misses for The Paperboy despite Globe and SAG nominations for it. I don't think the role was particularly likable nor was it especially praised. Four nominations is still excellent, but I feel like if she had better luck, that feels weird to write because obviously she's been incredibly fortunate, is that she'd have at least one or two more.
|
|
LaraQ
Badass
English Rose
Posts: 2,301
Likes: 2,835
|
Post by LaraQ on Jul 17, 2019 17:38:07 GMT
Kidman.Winslet has been in the business for over 20 yrs and still can't do an convincing American accent.She's highly overrated imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2019 17:51:22 GMT
Kidman.Winslet has been in the business for over 20 yrs and still can't do an convincing American accent.She's highly overrated imo. Really? I personally see nothing wrong with her accent work - In my experience, Americans who only know her from Titanic tend to be surprised that she's not actually American. Kidman, on the other hand, has lived in the US for three decades and still goes in and out of her American accent in every project I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Jul 17, 2019 18:05:12 GMT
Kidman.Winslet has been in the business for over 20 yrs and still can't do an convincing American accent.She's highly overrated imo. Really? I personally see nothing wrong with her accent work - In my experience, Americans who only know her from Titanic tend to be surprised that she's not actually American. Kidman, on the other hand, has lived in the US for three decades and still goes in and out of her American accent in every project I've seen. Oh honey, Kidman always resorts to that god awful whispering unless there's a voice coach in the credits. That scene where she's in the desert with Pattinson and a camel and nothing else and she's whispering her lines... Was she worried the camel was listening in?! ... and she never fully loses her Australian intonation.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 17, 2019 18:13:18 GMT
Kidman.Winslet has been in the business for over 20 yrs and still can't do an convincing American accent.She's highly overrated imo. Really? I personally see nothing wrong with her accent work - In my experience, Americans who only know her from Titanic tend to be surprised that she's not actually American. Kidman, on the other hand, has lived in the US for three decades and still goes in and out of her American accent in every project I've seen. This reminds me of that thing I always say - being an actor is just a no win job. Think about it: Be a great actress someone will complain about your accent (which is fine not picking on LaraQ's point at all, just a joke, see below) I myself often make jokes about Nicole Kidman's forehead - and I LIKE her ....but I still do it...... has nothing to do with her acting, it's mean and petty, I do it though..........people will rag on Winslet's weight........Davis' um.........spit.............Blanchett's aloofness..........Streep's just not going away - Go away already!! .......... Have a bad couple of years, it's what have you done for me lately...........see somebody on stage have an off night and people won't cut you any slack at all (I've done this too - I saw Viola Davis in Fences have an off night, struggled with her lines, I totally ripped her )........... You're Robert De Niro - you know, like arguably the GOAT and people tell you not to make this movie say you haven't done anything in 20 years when you have an Oscar nod and Emmy nod in the last 5 they tell you........not to do this commercial.......to shut up about the President.....no wait....to talk MORE about the President. They'll call you a cliche, a parody ..........they ask why can't Nic Cage just whisper which really means why can't he not be Nic Cage at all? They'll mock Renee Zellweger's plastic surgery disaster then want to give her an Oscar of a trailer to show that looks don't matter. They say do something original but 5 versions of ASIB still aren't enough You're Christian Bale, put your body through hell and people aren't impressed - "Oh that again? F-it, Rami Malek deserves the Oscar............wait he didn't sing? F-it Taron Egerton deserves the Oscar! ..........and my favorite............. they'll eventually call you, gulp "irrelevant" because you committed the worst sin ...............you got older. Phew...................Tough racket that acting thing
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 17, 2019 18:14:35 GMT
Kidman.Winslet has been in the business for over 20 yrs and still can't do an convincing American accent.She's highly overrated imo. Really? I personally see nothing wrong with her accent work - In my experience, Americans who only know her from Titanic tend to be surprised that she's not actually American. Kidman, on the other hand, has lived in the US for three decades and still goes in and out of her American accent in every project I've seen. Neither are consistently flawless, but Kidman has nailed completely different American accents a lot. To Die For . The Paperboy etc. No slips into Aussie twang. I've clocked that about Kidman. When the accent is really central to a character's personality (Suzanne Stone Moretto's shallow valley girl twang in To Die For emphasises who she is) Kidman doesn't revert. When it isn't so central to a character, her Yankee accent can slip. She's got incredible technical ability, but she's a much less technical actress than say Streep. But her work generally has more emotional and psychological resonance than a Streep or a Blanchett. Winslet always does that generic transatlantic American accent that a lot of Brit actors do for US roles, where you can tell it's Brit actor emphasising every vowel. It works fine for Titanic, because it's a period piece where posh Americans tend to have similar intonations to Brits. But it gets more noticeable in contemporary roles. At her very best, Kidman has been more convincing in a fairly wide range of Yankee accents. But to be fair to Winslet, her strength is in her emotional conviction as well. She generally doesn't need to be flawless accent wise, just decent enough. Because she sells the emotions.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 17, 2019 18:38:48 GMT
I dunno, to me when you're comparing accents you're in trouble - you might as well be comparing what they ate for lunch.
I know they matter to some people but not to me (way down on the list for me) - I will say both of these actresses have actor behavior that in effect calls attention to the accent - but in a way that's different from the actual accent itself.
Kidman in Destroyer - sorry to pick on it again but I dislike it a lot and am looking for a negative here - she whispers her dialog so much that when she (rarely) breaks out of it you notice her cadence is different so you wonder why is she whispering that much to begin with? In Eyes Wide Shut where she's the best thing in it she does her lines in often sing song patterns to mask the cadence - it works but you could wonder why exactly - actor choice or actor cover-up or something else?
Winslet is so broad with her accent and how she draws that character in Wonder Wheel it doesn't seem off to me exactly (and again I wouldn't care if it was) but you start to ruminate on it - does she feel she needs to save the picture or jump start it - did Allen direct her like that because she's the best thing he's got there ...........but why is she making those broad choices.........is he?
When these two are at their best...........as is the case in most good actors........the accent is "good enough" and that's the case in Eyes Wide Shut or Wonder Wheel.
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,388
Likes: 1,271
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Jul 17, 2019 18:51:57 GMT
Love them both but Winslet without hesitation. Her projects as of late could be translated as a roller coaster by itself, and a couple of off performances in the mix, but for most of the time she still got it, it might not be the incredible run she had 1994-2008 but even in small turns like Contagion, deserve a movie just about her character, almost always she embodies what a film is trying to say. Kidman will always be seen as the most daring given her off-screen persona and classic looks, you see her in Killing of a sacred Deer and think of her as an undergroud Princess, but at times ( Big Little Lies, Destroyer ) her performances feel driven more by emotion / what the character represent and comes with the most suttles ways of overacting I’ve ever encounter in modern cinema, something Winslet will never do.
And as final, thinking about points made earlier, in Kidman’s case, her overexposure is a double-edged weapon, because, just remember, right after her divorcee, she did some of her best-ever work in films like Dogville or Birth, a special merit because at the time she was having a hard time and her career was “over” a few times during that period and projects like that kept the flame career alive. On the other hand, today, the ideology / cult around things like Big Little Lies have more weight that the actual result.
|
|