|
Post by stephen on Aug 23, 2019 20:33:44 GMT
To inaugurate this thread, let's talk about Philip Seymour Hoffman / Paul Thomas Anderson.
Their first pairing was in PTA's eternally underappreciated feature debut, Hard Eight. Hoffman plays a nameless and boorish craps player who needles Philip Baker Hall for five minutes, in a scene seemingly designed to showcase Hall's endless patience and Hoffman's skill at playing loudmouthed jackasses. There are a lot of fine performances in Hard Eight (including Tarantino's main man Sam Jackson), but when it comes to the supporting cast, Hoffman made his stamp far more indelibly than the others.
That same year, Hoffman would crop up in the film that really and truly put Anderson on the map: Boogie Nights. In such a sprawling and mesmerizing ensemble, Hoffman nevertheless makes his mark as Scotty J, the biggest misfit of the entire unstable crew that makes up Jack Horner's domain. In a far cry from his braggadocious craps player, Hoffman perfectly embodies a pathetic awkwardness that makes him heartbreaking and repellent in equal measure. Hard to believe it's the same actor.
Fast-forward two years to Magnolia, which features Hoffman playing Phil Parma, the live-in male nurse to the dying Jason Robards. There are some shades of Scotty J's loneliness in the meek Parma, but it's still a distinct character in its own right. He plays so well against Robards and (ultimately) Cruise, but for me, it's the scenes where he has to speak to faceless voices on the telephone that make Hoffman's scenes really pop. Hoffman has to be our emotional anchor in those moments, and he does so well at it.
His next collaboration with PTA was in another brief role: Dean Trumbell, the "Mattress Man" who intimidates and bullies hapless men trapped in his phone-sex scheme. Hoffman had never before evinced toughness in his roles, but here, he projects a thunderous forcefulness. In the end, he's a paper tiger when squaring off against Adam Sandler, but he nevertheless dominates every second he's on-screen in a way he hadn't quite done at that point.
This all leads up to his first (and sadly, only) proper leading role under Anderson's direction: the title character of The Master. Lancaster Dodd is a complete departure for any character he’d done with Anderson, and yet he still brings elements of Phil Parma, Dean Trumbell and even the craps player to the Master. There are even traces of Daniel Plainview in Dodd; in one scene, when confronted by a critic seeking to pick apart the Cause’s logic, Dodd’s face sets in a decidedly Plainview-esque glare, and in that moment, we were more afraid of Hoffman than we had ever been, as the normally affable actor had rarely evinced such chilling power.
Unfortunately, Hoffman's untimely death would make this their final collaboration, but what a collaboration indeed. One can only wonder if there were projects percolating in PTA's mind that he kiboshed once Phil had died.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 23, 2019 20:44:07 GMT
I know you don't agree stephen but he should have played Dano's role in TWBB - I don't care about the ages, rewrite it, make it work because TWBB is flawed (in a couple ways, but especially) imo by the Dano performance opposite DDL.
Looking at those great roles it's the one he didn't do that sticks out to me. But........yeah they were an awesome combination.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 23, 2019 20:53:59 GMT
I know you don't agree stephen but he should have played Dano's role in TWBB - I don't care about the ages, rewrite it, make it work because TWBB is flawed (in a couple ways, but especially) imo by the Dano performance opposite DDL. Looking at those great roles it's the one he didn't do that sticks out to me. But........yeah they were an awesome combination. I agree and disagree. I think Hoffman would've been incredible in his early years as Eli Sunday, especially if he projected that sort of beatific boyishness that belied his inner sliminess (which Hoffman excelled at), but at 2007, I just don't think he would've been right. What makes Eli Sunday work is how he should be so dismissable by Daniel, and yet he's that little piece of filth stuck to his shoe he just can't get rid of. And Dano is exceptional in the role and really doesn't get the respect he should for going toe-to-toe with the greatest performance in cinematic history with four days' notice.
But yeah, if you could've built a time machine and gotten Hoffman from the early '90s and plopped him in 2007, it would've been great.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 23, 2019 21:37:16 GMT
Al Pacino/Barry Levinson
I wanted to get in a little earlier on this thread (great thread idea) because while Pacino has this more famously with other big names - Schatzberg, Coppola, Lumet, De Palma, Mann - the dirty little secret is that this actor has never been truly at his very best for less than "name" directors.
But Levinson who he's worked with 3 times from the ages 70-79 - YDK Jack, The Humbling and Paterno - has sort of saved his career artistically imo - and opened him to other strong work for other directors when it looked like he might be a spent force at age 70.
Levinson totally "gets" Pacino - they go back to ....And Justice For All which he co-wrote - and how to keep him engaged and challenged and in every one of their 3 projects he will devise scenes where he is laughable yet crushingly sad and then construct his whole film based on what Pacino is doing at the center of the piece. Pacino likes that approach and trusts Levinson - he's done special work without Levinson too (Manglehorn/Phil Spector/Danny Collins) but even those you get that feeling that Levinson made it happen first and helped him get over a difficult artistic slump.
From The Humbling - his best non-HBO performance (imo, arguably) in the last 15 years - exploiting and commenting on vanity - he's playing Lear but is quite the Fool:
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Aug 23, 2019 21:46:22 GMT
My English is not good so I can't discuss thoroughly some pairings I have in mind, but I sure can write them down:
Scorsese-De Niro Scorsese-Di Caprio Scorsese-Pesci/ Keitel Tarantino-S. Jackson (already discussed) Tarantino-Di Caprio/ Pitt Tarantino with his whole gang actually (Roth, Madsen, Dern, Thurman, Russell) Nolan-C. Bale Nolan-T. Hardy Allen-D. Keaton Steven Spielberg-T. Hanks Jim Sheridan-DDL Tim Burton-J. Depp Tim Burton-H. Bonham Carter
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 23, 2019 22:16:37 GMT
Denzel Washington/Spike LeeIt's pretty well known that I'm not a huge Spike Lee fan but in combination with Denzel Washington he's shot some of his most honest and penetrating scenes ever. If you ever notice I post about Lee more than you might think - I covered him in Directors/Genre too because while his overall films may wobble or eventually "fail" - in individual components, like this, they fascinate. 4 collaborations - Malcolm X, Mo'Better Blues, He Got Game, Inside Man - that have resulted in 2 of Washington's best performances and where he's been used by the director in ways that get the most out of his film persona and actor tools. Malcolm X may be a bit episodic to sustain 3 hours but Washington is on in every scene and Lee who feels lovingly proud of that work exploits it to anchor his film - never slipping into impersonation or mere mimicry - it's jaw-dropping in its actor discipline but also in the director's support of what he's seeing unfold in front of him. Washington grabs the role by the throat - his director, knowing he has a good thing when he sees it - never once gets in the way. Inside Man and Mo' Better Blues - the lesser of their 4 films imo still exploit very movie star attributes with director techniques - all swirling cameras, cool persona and actor profiles/shadow and good natured gentle/sexy humor - the director is using his star as a star for less weightier purposes here but no less fabric building and tone for his films. In He Got Game - it's all of the other performances without the disciplined structure - here the messiness is an attractive quality - funny, childish, dangerous, petty, streetwise the performance in He Got Game is the director saying you can't control me or my lead actor and you don't know what he or I may do next. The physical performance is the LEAST interesting thing about the character but the director exploits and links the connections with a loss of control in sport with life too. It's so good and so complex and diverse - it makes you wonder why they stopped at just 4 movies.
|
|
|
Post by thomasjerome on Aug 23, 2019 22:45:32 GMT
Great thread. Due to his recent sad passing, I'd like to give a mention to Rutger Hauer's collaborations with Paul Verhoeven. It may be unknown to some but before they hit it big in Hollywood, Verhoeven and Hauer collaborations in their hometown were big deals for Dutch cinema, hugely popular at that time and if we'd believe in Hauer's words before his death, they kind of still are. Hauer was first cast in 1969 in the lead role of the television series Floris, a Dutch medieval action drama which was very popular in Netherlands. Then came their movies: Academy Award nominated "Turkish Delight" which was the most successful film of Dutch cinema ever. It was followed by another box office hit "Katie Tippel", Golden Globe-nominated "Soldier of Orange" (which helped them both to establish careers abroad) and a supporting appearance in "Spetters". Verhoeven understood what makes Hauer a special actor. If you watch all those films, he used Rutger's charisma, his sensitive, intimadating and wild sides very well. He saw that there were something magnetic about his presence and he knew how to use it. They collaborated once again in 1985's "Flesh + Blood", this time in Hollywood. Film that not without it flaws but still an impressive job. Rumor is they had a lot of disagreements over the character, but me personally liked what I see in the result. And most of these performances, in particular "Turkish Delight", "Soldier of Orange" and "Flesh + Blood" are still among his best, underappreciated performances imo, up there with "Legend of Holy Drinker" and "As Long as It's Love".They never collaborated again but they were still friends. In 2011 AV Club interview, Hauer said: May he rest in peace...
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 24, 2019 0:39:47 GMT
Michael Caine/Christopher NolanNolan once referred to Caine as his "good luck charm," and has cast him in every one of his films since he first ventured into blockbuster territory with Batman Begins (we don't see him in Dunkirk, though we still hear his voice). Among the films on which they've collaborated together, Caine is perhaps best known for his role as Alfred Pennyworth, the surrogate father figure to Bruce Wayne. Up until TDK trilogy, the character of Alfred had never had the kind of presence in the live action Batman films that he does in Nolan's films: his relationship with Bruce forms the emotional core of the trilogy. Even critics of Nolan's handling of this particular iteration of Batman seem to acknowledge the dynamic between Bruce and Alfred as one of the strongest aspects of these films... and the dramatic resonance of that relationship stems from the value Nolan saw in further developing that element of Batman's story, and Caine's ability to uncannily embody the paternal figure that Alfred represents. Beyond Caine's work in TDK trilogy, it's always interesting to see how Nolan exploits Caine's persona in different ways. Caine's characters in Nolan's films often function as a moral center, even when we see very little of him (Inception), but he can be utilized in a deceptive way that subverts our pre-conceived perception of him (Interstellar). In The Prestige, he might initially appear to be an "Alfred type" to Hugh Jackman's character, but the dynamic between them is quite different, and the supporting role he serves alongside Jackman is different in function... there's an edge to Caine's character there that makes us not quite sure how to feel about him. Never given a starring role in a Nolan film, Caine knows how to fit within the world Nolan creates around him, and his presence never feels arbitrary... it's always welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Aug 24, 2019 2:04:36 GMT
Al Pacino/Barry LevinsonI wanted to get in a little earlier on this thread (great thread idea) because while Pacino has this more famously with other big names - Schatzberg, Coppola, Lumet, De Palma, Mann - the dirty little secret is that this actor has never been truly at his very best for less than "name" directors. But Levinson who he's worked with 3 times from the ages 70-79 - YDK Jack, The Humbling and Paterno - has sort of saved his career artistically imo - and opened him to other strong work for other directors when it looked like he might be a spent force at age 70. Levinson totally "gets" Pacino - they go back to ....And Justice For All which he co-wrote - and how to keep him engaged and challenged and in every one of their 3 projects he will devise scenes where he is laughable yet crushingly sad and then construct his whole film based on what Pacino is doing at the center of the piece. Pacino likes that approach and trusts Levinson - he's done special work without Levinson too (Manglehorn/Phil Spector/Danny Collins) but even those you get that feeling that Levinson made it happen first and helped him get over a difficult artistic slump. Love this pick. In one of those great interviews during the retrospective last year Pacino said how he learned from John Cazale to "live inside improvisation" meaning during a performance, and I think that's the kinda room Levinson creates for him, to play around and build from within a freeing space, and why they work so well together. Specifically in The Humbling which was a considerable DIY project; they mostly shot in Levinson's own home and he fought for a WGA credit too (didn't get it) which proves how dedicated and proud he was of that movie, Pacino's passion project. They connect in two other ways besides the three movies and And Justice... Levinson's production company was behind Donnie Brasco, from the ground up, and always had Pacino lined up for Lefty even when Frears was gonna direct. And... Levinson co-produced Phil Spector, so he's had a hand in all the HBOs this decade! speaking of De Palma, who almost did Paterno we know, he had a phenomenal two with Pacino and it really sucks how they haven't been able to reconnect even though they've tried many times...
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Aug 24, 2019 2:23:29 GMT
Since he's been mentioned, how about Lumet & Sean Connery Five movies together, a few unremarkable... but Anderson Tapes is an interesting energetic mess with some strong subtext about the peculiar and perverted nature of criminality and you can pick up on it in some of Connery's perf. But mainly...... The Hill which he did between Bonds, and The Offence. Both pushed Connery to physical and psychological extremes, especially The Offence, his career best perf. Sort of completely breaking down that slick operating Bond image, Lumet placed Connery right into these arduous roles and let 'em rip, positioning the camera and pushing the taut tone to capture him in a close and soul-crushing way.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Aug 24, 2019 2:38:12 GMT
I think Soderbergh/Damon fit here.... Damon's best leading work this century is with Sod, The Informant and Behind the Candelabra. He's lightly humorous in the three Oceans, and then reverses with a heavy, affecting, completely drained perf in Contagion. And.... a rather great cameo in Unsane. They seem to just work well together and Damon under Sod's guiding has given many of his best perfs, characters with varying tempers, and no doubt his most daring work too with Candelabra.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 24, 2019 9:28:40 GMT
Isabelle Huppert/Claude ChabrolThis is a tricky one because you could argue Huppert-Haneke or Chabrol-Audran but neither of those seems as conspiratorial as this relationship. Chabrol always had things to say and in Huppert he found his perfect instrument of conveyance - she was literally his partner in crime or um, crime films. Chabrol would be the last person to ever want an actor or actress to "transform" - who wants that and why? - why cast that actor if you can't recognize them or know them so that he could play with you - yet with Huppert he did it before your eyes - she is never who she first appears to be in any Chabrol film - she transforms through how she's presented. In Violette what appears to be linear is with Huppert in the lead (already!) more complex and sinister and matter of fact doleful just because she's playing it. That collaboration which some thought was "too straightforward" - how Chabrol must have loved that reaction! - would set them on a path where he could write anything (because she could play anything), where he had an actress of equal or more intelligence and humor could evoke contradictory and at times unsettling truths - the poor are always manipulated, order always imposes itself unfairly even cruelly and the rich devise their own death by simply being alive - by existing - they seem to mock the poor. It's the collaborations that maybe don't work as obviously where you really see it - in Madame Bovary - is Huppert "right" for Madame Bovary ........is Chabrol? They are because this is Chabrol's Bovary as much it is Flaubert's and if Chabrol is going down that path he's doing it with her by his side. In Story of Women - one of the great films of his career - and unlike any he had really ever done - and one of the great female lead performances ever - a film that garners tremendous sympathy without ever once compromising the actions to sway the audience. Try to think of a female characterization like it - in fact, the closest characterization like it would be from a male - say in Raging Bull or There Will Be Blood maybe. There's no falsely feminized or "star" in how he presents, uses Huppert or in how she'd allow herself to be used either - she is on some level a "masculine" star in the best sense of the term. There's a sexual component to all of her turns for him - it's never freeing, liberating or simple. La Ceremonie - my favorite female lead performance ever - is an entire construct to the banality of evil and how idle hands (minds) are the devils workshop - little detail after little detail adds up until you can't take more of those pesky details. In this picture - with another stunning turn by Sandrine Bonnaire - we see how Huppert projects on to her, defines herself through her and how circumstances which are entirely apart from her can lead on to quite logically enact the most violent solutions. It's the motive (always there) AND the method - which is right here, right now - without both, lives of quiet desperation only, with it, explosive resolution. That kind of partnership is a rare and wonderful thing in films - Chabrol even constructed a sort of love letter to her in The Swindle - which gets better and sweeter on repeat watches - where she could be the one doing the conning or the one being conned - the smart, slyly (relatively) youthful humorous one who loves (in a way) the conning (relatively) older smart, devilishly humorous one who also loves her (in a way) because I mean just look at the rest of the world. Who are they supposed to "love" .......who is getting swindled?
|
|
|
Post by thomasjerome on Aug 24, 2019 10:06:44 GMT
Rather underrated director-actor duo; Paul Schrader-Willem Dafoe deserves a mention. There’s no surprise that many auteurs – Lars Von Trier, Wes Anderson and of course Abel Ferrara – keep coming back to Dafoe . The man is very committed to his craft, very professional and of course, has an impressive range. Also he loves to challenge himself and is probably just a great guy to work with. Dafoe gave one of his best performances in Schrader-scripted movie that is “The Last Temptation of Christ” before getting cast in his first Schrader-directed film, “Light Sleeper”, one of my top favorites. It gives a great chance to Dafoe to be the sole lead and focus of his film. He gives a complex and moving performance as drug delivery man who wants a different life but doesn't know how to get it. Schrader relied on his narration skills in their next collaboration “Affliction” before casting him as an eccentric electronic expert in “Auto Focus”, a performance that earned him noms from NYFCC and CFCA. Greg Kinnear was probably delivering his best work at that time but Dafoe stole the film. Schrader was well aware of Dafoe’s menacing side and got him to play the Nazi in ‘Adam Resurrected’. Even though it was mostly a Jeff Goldblum show, Dafoe’s scenes were also impressive. Willem was little pissed off to get called for a nothing-role in “The Walker”, an elegant but rather dull Schrader effort but for to not make his star more pissed, he says he had to cast him in “Dog Eat Dog”, this time letting his wild side speak and just have fun with the role. He did it and the result was delicious to watch. There were times that Dafoe had to turn him down. He was no available for the Gus Van Sant's part in "The Canyons". Neither was his second choice; Goldblum. Maybe it's for the best considering how the film ended up being. Now they're ready to collaborate again for "Nine Men from Now" which is already one of my most anticipated films.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Aug 24, 2019 13:23:08 GMT
Very interesting collaborations were these between Anthony Hopkins and Richard Attenborough (3 films I think, the pretty good Shadowlands and Magic and the amazing Bridge Too Far!!) and of course Bob Rafelson with Jack Nicholson.
They made six movies together: Head (they wrote it together and Jack kept a small role in it), Blood and Wine, Man Trouble, the remake of The Postman Always Rings Twice, The King of Marvin Gardens and Five Easy Pieces.
I believe the last two I mentioned really showed the depth of Nicholson's talent and why not, "shaped" him as an actor (along with Carnal Knowledge).
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 24, 2019 14:00:16 GMT
Klaus Kinski / Werner HerzogNot only 5 collaborations but a whole separate documentary by the director ABOUT the actor. Never in film history have an actor/director combined as madly and unhealthily as Kinski and Herzog. It is impossible to describe it without seeing the film evidence of it. In Aguirre, Wrath of God - a story of a madman narcissist that Kinski was almost too perfect for, the template was established - and so was the myth. One tried to kill the other - or they both did - which spun into 2 films where one cannot die (Nosferatu) and one where Death is the rational choice of a madly structured cruel world (Woyzeck). In their final 2 collaborations - Fitzcarraldo and Cobra Verde - the crew literally died or quits at the hands of first Herzog and then Kinski. The 5 films they made and the documentary - where Kinski in one of the most mesmerizing piece of performance art ever recorded plays a raving, non-peaceful Jesus - the symbiotic relationship between the two could not be more clear or more confusing - each was each others savior and destroyer. Who is the mad one? Who is the ego driven one? Who is the reasonable one?
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Aug 24, 2019 14:23:32 GMT
Billy Wilder/Jack Lemmon Jim Sheridan/Daniel Day-Lewis Bertrand Tavernier/Philippe Noiret
are some that spring to my mind
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 24, 2019 16:00:27 GMT
Robert Duvall/Francis Ford CoppolaThis isn't the first one you'd think of for this director but if you ever look at their 5 films - in a row - you see that not only does Duvall play pivotal characters - he plays characters that Coppola has devised as commentaries within his own films. That he created a whole gallery without one single lead is a testament to how remarkable he could be at his best. The Rain People and Apocalypse Now are in effect the opposite of the lead characters - cultural "right wing" men, the flipside of the outsider James Caan and Marlon Brando characters - the law and the Army subverted to their darkest sides "Who would want to be a cop? Who would want to join the Army?" - the formal implementation of structure and order on chaos. In the first 2 Godfather films he is not the opposite but rather the enabler of Michael Corleone - the man who is The Godfather is that because he goes places Tom Hagen would not or could not. His presence is a reminder that Michael exceeds a moral barrier that Tom - not being a true son and yet as smart - can never have to be burdened with - on some level he can never be what Michael is. We see Tom and recognize that the films are not singular in their presentation of evil too - there are levels and gradation. No Tom Hagen, no real understanding of how far Michael has fallen - he's pivotal and he's difficult to play - Duvall evokes the elusiveness of what Coppola (and Puzo) wrote. In The Conversation he is at first an apparent murderer turned victim - we see him in counterpoint to Harry Caul he is not the opposite or enabler but rather an eerie symbolic representation. Harry fears how he may end up and he can never go to the police, who can never prolong the mystery ever, can't investigate further. He is too horror stricken to act further because the horror is so.......... personal it has to be merely put away. I have often said the Duvall not doing The Godfather Part III - a film I quite like - was a selfish and petty artistic move imo but he and Coppola seem to be friends and that's good to see because for 5 films - they were something rare in American films. Duvall was his and our moral barometer and a lot of the lead performances that people rave as GOAT level wouldn't have quite the same scope and definition without the Duvall portrayals in support. From The Rain People - all immoral rigid morality, the gun being both dangerous and arousing, the keeper of order which is itself dangerous and arousing too.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Aug 24, 2019 16:38:02 GMT
Jim Sheridan/Daniel Day-Lewis That one, I also suggested. I'd love to see an analysis as the two out of the three collaborations between them (Left Foot, In the Name of the Father) are my favorite DDL films.
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Aug 24, 2019 17:44:59 GMT
Lee Kang-sheng/Tsai Ming-liang This is probably one of the most prolific actor/director collaborations in the last three decades as actor Lee Kang-sheng has starred in every single film that Tsai Ming-liang has directed. His detached and quiet demeanor perfectly encompasses the main themes of meditation, isolation and lack of communication that are scattered throughout Tsai Ming-liang's filmography. Actually Kang-sheng was working in an arcade and didn't have any acting chops when the director approached him in 1989 and asked him to act in his TV film, All the Corners Of The World. Their relationship is so strong that Tsai Ming-liang has stated that he couldn't even imagine making a film that didn't feature Lee Kang-sheng in it.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 24, 2019 18:53:10 GMT
I have often said the Duvall not doing The Godfather Part III - a film I quite like - was a selfish and petty artistic move imo but he and Coppola seem to be friends and that's good to see because for 5 films - they were something rare in American films. I still think that you're far too harsh on Duvall for that. Guy was fully in the right to ask for an equal paycheck as Pacino. Duvall was a bonafide leading man, a Best Actor winner (something Pacino couldn't yet boast) and he saw the whole project as a cash-grab rather than anything artistic in merit. He knew there wasn't any juice in the story, that they'd somehow pulled off a miracle with The Godfather: Part II that they couldn't hope to replicate fifteen years later, and if they weren't going to pay him and treat him with equal measure, why bother? Especially as the rumor was that Tom Hagen would've been an equal (or near-equal) focus of the story as Michael was.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 24, 2019 19:30:04 GMT
I have often said the Duvall not doing The Godfather Part III - a film I quite like - was a selfish and petty artistic move imo but he and Coppola seem to be friends and that's good to see because for 5 films - they were something rare in American films. I still think that you're far too harsh on Duvall for that. Guy was fully in the right to ask for an equal paycheck as Pacino. Duvall was a bonafide leading man, a Best Actor winner (something Pacino couldn't yet boast) and he saw the whole project as a cash-grab rather than anything artistic in merit. He knew there wasn't any juice in the story, that they'd somehow pulled off a miracle with The Godfather: Part II that they couldn't hope to replicate fifteen years later, and if they weren't going to pay him and treat him with equal measure, why bother? Especially as the rumor was that Tom Hagen would've been an equal (or near-equal) focus of the story as Michael was. Well, I will say that I have cared less over the years - people who enjoy and defend the film like it (me included), people who don't are welcome to that opinion and they'll never be persuaded to its merits anyway - and hey every movie ever made can be called a cash grab - what sequel isn't a cash grab - Blade Runner 2049? (pulling your leg but the point still stands too - they are all cash grabs) I still think it wasn't his finest negotiating move but I've mellowed on it - because incredibly I'm even older and more mellow now - heck in the old days I wouldn't have been so reasonable about him as to include Bobby Duvall in this thread ...........or to say he should get the Kennedy Center honor .......or to even arguably include him as a GOAT US contender in Stage/Film/TV thread.........I consider that some growth on my part pal
|
|
|
Post by Longtallsally on Aug 24, 2019 20:03:35 GMT
Toshiro Mifune and Akira Kurosawa, who worked together on many great films, such as Throne of Blood, Rashomon, Seven Samurai, to name but a few.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Aug 24, 2019 21:57:19 GMT
I have often said the Duvall not doing The Godfather Part III - a film I quite like - was a selfish and petty artistic move imo but he and Coppola seem to be friends and that's good to see because for 5 films - they were something rare in American films. I still think that you're far too harsh on Duvall for that. Guy was fully in the right to ask for an equal paycheck as Pacino. Duvall was a bonafide leading man, a Best Actor winner (something Pacino couldn't yet boast) and he saw the whole project as a cash-grab rather than anything artistic in merit. He knew there wasn't any juice in the story, that they'd somehow pulled off a miracle with The Godfather: Part II that they couldn't hope to replicate fifteen years later, and if they weren't going to pay him and treat him with equal measure, why bother? Especially as the rumor was that Tom Hagen would've been an equal (or near-equal) focus of the story as Michael was. Pacino was a much bigger star back in 1989 than Duvall even without an Oscar and I can't really see how part III would focus equally or near-equally on both Hagen and Michael. But apart from these, I totally get your point there. Let's not also forget that even Pacino was a very hard negotiator and was asking for a load of money. So much even that Coppola threatened him he would change the script and part III would start with Michael's funeral.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 24, 2019 23:00:10 GMT
Gerard Depardieu/Bertrand BlierThere are very few actors I ranked ahead of Gerard Depardieu in our greatest actors poll - heck you could probably name them if you know my posts - but no director ever pushed, challenged or contradicted him more than Bertrand Blier in their first 5 films together (they made more and I believe are making one now?) In Going Places he perfected a screen persona quite close to what his eventual off-screen persona would later become - a lovable, hedonistic wild man. That film touched on much uncomfortable sexuality but nothing of what was to come in their work. In their next collaboration, the Oscar winning Get Out Your Handkerchiefs the co-stars of Going Places (Depardieu and Patrick Dewaere) would have their sexual exploits curtailed by a woman who can't get pleasure from either of them but from a young boy only - and indeed her mother instinct leads to an uncomfortable series of twists played for laughs - laughs AND Oscars, can you imagine? Those 2 movies were nothing compared to the hysterically funny Buffet Froid which replaces the sexuality with a cultural fascination with violence and screen portrayals of masculinity and yet ends with the sexiest murder I've ever seen on screen. Depardieu is tremendously funny here and before where the sexuality fueled the spark of his comic portrayals, here the absurdity - the fact that he seems "dangerous" on screen fueled this black comic triumph. In Menage it was back to the sexuality and subtext with Depardieu in an achingly funny first half, followed by a truly bizarre and boundary pushing second half where his character - a bisexual cross dressing robber subverts every screen depiction of alpha male sexuality in film. The 5th collaboration - the penetrating and insightful Too Beautiful For You had Depardieu married to a beautiful woman who is drawn to someone considered plain. Here all of his previous portrayals connected with each other - what does this say about him? What kind of man is he? He's closer to the woman in Get Out Your Handkerchiefs and yet in the passion he has with the plain woman closer to the hedonist in Going Places. No overtly masculine actor ever played with his sexuality or manhood the way Depardieu did in films with Blier and no director ever enjoyed deconstructing a great actors persona and the facade of stardom more. They were gloriously offensive and funny across all these films and when you stopped laughing and thought about it they were often interested in a lot more than just laughs or offending you. From Get Out Your Handkerchiefs - a lovers triangle.....well sort of.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 25, 2019 2:19:39 GMT
In The Conversation - we see him in counterpoint to Harry Caul he is not the opposite or enabler but rather an eerie symbolic representation. Harry fears how he may end up and he can never go to the police, who can never prolong the mystery ever, can't investigate further. He is too horror stricken to act further because the horror is so.......... personal it has to be merely put away. It's funny, I rewatched this just the other day when showing to someone who had never seen it before, and her question at one point was "why doesn't he just go to the police?" What you say makes total sense, though one other thing I would say is that his paranoia makes him fearful of the unknown repercussions of choosing to act further... how much further would he involve himself in this situation that he doesn't understand? Question: do you have a specific interpretation of how much of the final scene is real or in Harry's head? The person I watched it with seemed to think that final phone call from Harrison Ford at the end was definitely imagined, whereas I've never really decided if I think that's the case or not...
|
|