|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 6, 2019 19:10:56 GMT
Tommen_Saperstein mentioned this yesterday in the Hoffman/Pacino poll so stealing his idea here (thanks Tommen!) and I know it's important to stephen too. To me.........not so much. We've discussed this but until we do a poll on it, have we really discussed it? Um.......... How important is it when you're ranking actors or actresses - certainly Hopkins say or Lange would get ripped for this........if you chose to rip them for it. But they don't really drop further down in how they are rated for their, um, valleys.........or do they?
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 6, 2019 19:16:18 GMT
Here's my thing: I can forgive inconsistency if I feel like the actor was actually doing their best to achieve some sort of artistic goal in the work and were throwing themselves into it. Sure, maybe it didn't work, but at least they were giving it 100%.
What I can't forgive is inconsistency due to laziness with the sole idea of picking up a paycheck. You don't have to give a fuck, but you are literally being paid to pretend that you give a fuck, and if you're going to cost that amount for doing the bare minimum, you should call it a day.
I think consistency isn't the be-all and end-all judge and arbiter of an actor's career's quality, but it's a damn important facet of it, and I feel like those who argue against its importance are generally trying to bolster their favorites when they've got a spotty record. It's okay if you champion an actor who doesn't have a faultless record, but you should still evaluate why those faults happened and what could've been done to mitigate them. Because yes, the great films are remembered and the bad ones largely forgotten, but I think at that point, you're cherrypicking rather than evaluating, and those valleys are often just as important as the peaks in seeing what an actor is or is not capable of and how they handled it.
Using your Hopkins example, for instance. I would never claim he has a sterling record in terms of his film choices, but he almost always gives it 100% when he's on-screen, and that professionalism makes up for a lot of those issues I have with his filmography.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Sept 6, 2019 19:28:44 GMT
To me it's quite important. When I rank actors or just try to measure they greatness I certainly look at how many "great" and "good" performances they have given. But it's certainly not everything. If somebody is always good, but never "amazing" or "great", something misses as well and I'd likely take somebody over him, who has a few lesser performances aside a few great ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 6, 2019 19:40:18 GMT
I think I lean more "Case by Case Basis" - because the truth is even though I say it isn't important to me I hold it far more against some actors than others. It's tricky because I always relate everything back to Brando and Olivier - 1 and 2 in my personal voting in our GOAT poll who I think sum up a lot even now. They were both all-timers of course........both were great when they were great in different ways........both had a lot of crap where you can't even tell when they might be giving 100% too......and their crap wasn't the same kind of crap even (Brando maybe you would say was a result of being "lazy"......Olivier maybe the result of being "restless"). They are so opposite you learn a lot by looking at things through them I think - even today Brando is the definitive "peak" level choice, and Olivier would be the choice for "amount" of quality performances. Unless you think they were so inconsistent neither is a choice  |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 6, 2019 19:47:15 GMT
Brando is and will always be something of an outlier. A game-changer when he started out, his run in the early '50s is top-shelf and cannot be argued against. But the 1960s were fallow for him, and it took skilled directors like Coppola and Donner to use a lazy Brando in the '70s to his full potential (I'd argue Bertolucci might as well, although it would seem Brando actually gave something of a damn in that movie). Brando had a natural screen presence that you couldn't ignore, and in the right director's hands, he could be wielded majestically. But Brando's reputation has been blemished by that laziness, and rightly so. He's considered one of the peak gods of the art form, but one who viewed the profession with distaste and treated it as such. And I think a lot of actors idolized that viewpoint, and wrongly so.
Olivier's consistency can largely be chalked up to his work ethic; the guy busted his ass and it showed. Sure, he has some clunkers to his name, but very few people stake his reputation on the basis of Inchon, whereas Brando can be seen as a cautionary tale that a lot of the early promising actors of the '70s and '80s should've heeded but didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Sept 6, 2019 20:27:10 GMT
like anything it's a case-by-case kinda thing but I generally value consistency more than peak work yes, and I think that's partly due to my admittedly annoying tendency to dwell on the negative. And this goes beyond paycheck hunting, which is something any actor has to do at some point. Cinema in many/most ways has always been a business and acting is a job, sometimes an extremely rewarding one (but those tend to not be the best-paying ones) but a job nonetheless and actors always occasionally have to accept jobs that are beneath their abilities just to continue to work. So I put all the to one side unless it becomes a major theme (I think Hopkins will take literally anything) and lean on my own pessimistic subjectivity. There are some actors that transcend this though. No one remembers Brando's lows, he's always going to be associated with his greatest performances of which there were many. As for his clunkers, out of sight out of mind. Those aren't the roles we remember. Now, this isn't true for performances that are divisive. When I'm talking about someone like Pacino or Nicholson's lows, I'm not thinking about Jack and Jill or Gigli because no one takes those seriously, I'm thinking about Scarface and Terms of Endearment and Prizzi's Honor. Some would say all three of those performances are great (I'm sure there are some on this board that enjoy every single one of them), but I find them obnoxious and shallow which can be a hot take sometimes (also don't care for Phoenix's early 2000s stuff and much of his 2010s slate doesn't leave much of an impression but I try not to go around shouting that from the rooftops  ) but it's my opinion. Some performers like Denzel or Jeff Bridges or Dustin Hoffman or PSH or Dafoe have those rare slates of work that I consistently admire; at least the performances that matter anyways--the ones that are thought about and talked about most often and even some that aren't. Going back to Pacino and Hoffman and maybe this is just my proclivity for negativity, but I can't think of the fact that Pacino had a legendary 70s run and was unmatched by all of his contemporaries both in quality of the work itself and the fact that many of those films are time-tested masterpieces without also thinking of the performances he gave (esp in the 80s and 90s) that many like but do nothing for me at all. When I think about Hoffman and all his most-seen and talked-about performances and even some that aren't talked about as much (Straw Dogs and Straight Time for example) I can't think of a single one I didn't enjoy at least to some extent, and many of them I love. I think that makes all the difference in the world because thinking about Hoffman's oeuvre doesn't bring to mind any negative thoughts whatsoever and that's a great feeling. If I take a step back I can understand why Pacino is so loved and not just because of his 70s run. He's a very energetic and charismatic performer who appeared in a lot of genre films that cinephiles tend to eat up (Scarface, Carlito's, Heat). But this is cinema, who gives a shit about objectivity. For my money I'll take Hoffman any day of the week. |
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on Sept 6, 2019 20:40:31 GMT
I tend to value consistency a little more because you can really see the depth of someone's talent when they can make shoddy material shine through without compromising their talent. Your not going to get baity roles all the time but it's what the actor can do with the raw materials they have and the training they have acquired to make weak material somehow work and make you believe that they believe in whatever they are saying. That's why I tend to prefer guys like a Hackman, Bridges and Denzel over say Hoffman or a Brando.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 6, 2019 22:10:25 GMT
Depends on what exactly you're asking.
1. How important is an actor's filmography when I'm judging their ability as an actor? Not important at all. I judge an actor's abilities by their performances.
2. How important is an actor's filmography as far as I'm concerned? Very important, because I'm (generally) not going to want to watch a crappy movie just because it has a great performance from a great actor. They better have movies worth watching if I'm going to follow their career with any sort of interest.
3. How important is an actor's filmography when posterity judges their ability as an actor? Extremely important, because only great movies (as per consensus) last the test of time and audiences from 50-100 years later aren't even going to watch your movies unless they're regarded as great movies. It doesn't matter how great your performance in a movie was if nobody even watched it. It's going to add absolutely nothing to your regard.
4. How important is an actor's filmography as far as posterity is concerned? Again, extremely important. I don't even think Cazale is a great actor, but I'll never forget him until the day I die just because of the movies he was in. If you're in enough great movies, your legacy is secure, even if you sucked in them. Beats giving great performances in movies nobody remembers, because you might as well have not given them if nobody is watching them.
Not sure why "consistency" is being paired with "filmography" because they're very different things, but "consistency" absolutely matters to me and to audiences. Now, whether or not being "consistently good" beats being "inconsistent but with terrific peaks" is up for debate, but I doubt anybody would take "inconsistently good" over "consistently good".
|
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Sept 6, 2019 22:35:49 GMT
I don't know exactly what you mean. These are two totally different things, aren't they? Filmography as in how important is being good films to acting? To that I would think the obvious answer is not at all, surely?
Consistency is different. If someone is consistently interesting then that's better than sometimes being interesting and sometimes not I would say. But just being fine and uninspired in role after role I would definitely class as less important than someone who takes risks that sometimes fail spectacularly, and sometimes end up magical.
I guess I would go with the last option in the poll.
|
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Sept 6, 2019 23:04:29 GMT
 Looking at my top 3 actors -- De Niro, Pacino, Brando -- who all get dragged for some duds on their résumés... it's as simple as this: These duds have zero impact on the titanic impact of their best work. Is anyone gonna watch 88 Minutes and think less of Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon afterwards? Hell no. Consistency is nice and all... but I would never use it as the main reason to value one actor over another. It's the best work that matters and will be remembered. |
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Sept 7, 2019 1:28:52 GMT
I voted case by case. I'm more forgiving of inconsistency if it's someone who is just okay a lot of the time and periodically great instead of someone who is often genuinely bad. If an actor gives too many bad performances you start to wonder if the good ones were just luck or the result of good material and a good director.
There's also a certain point where an actor has enough great performances where their legacy is secure. Nothing Pacino or De Niro do now is going to change their place in film history for instance, same deal with Brando and Olivier later in their careers. On top of that, I don't think any of those guys truly give bad performances that often. They take/took nothing parts in bad movies, but the performance is still fine. Maybe Brando, but even then he was at least interesting.
It also depends on what kind of consistency we're talking about. If it's someone who is reliable and always "pretty good" that's nice but they don't belong on any greatest of all time lists and I'd put someone inconsistent who was at least great a few times ahead of them. But if it's someone who was consistently very good/great who had like 10 great performances vs someone with just three or something, I'll take the person with more great performances even if the other actor was better at their best.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 4:33:07 GMT
As I've said before on here I'm more of a directors guy than I am an actors guy, but I do see it similarly - sure, consistency is nice and of course a factor when determining favorites to some extent, but not nearly as much as the peaks the person can hit at their best (which is why I'll always hold Naomi Watts in such incredibly high regard as an actress - absolutely nothing she has done after Mulholland Dr. has ever come close to touching it, but I can count on one hand the amount of performances I find more impressive and moving), because for me, it's extremely rare that a director or actor has nothing I didn't find mediocre or bad or at least not up to par - even my personal GOAT artist Lynch has Dune. Even The Strokes have All the Time. Even DFW has Broom of the System. Etc. Nobody can be at their best with everything they do - or even close to it, I'd say.
|
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 7, 2019 13:24:12 GMT
It matters to me but not that much. I want to see them care for their work, being 100% there, playing as good as they can.
But the other two things matter the most: filmography and their peak levels. I value filmography because, well, it's their legacy. Not the awards, not their interviews or fans or anything. Filmography is the work of an actor, is what he leaves behind for the generations to come.
And their peaks... Let's admit it. When you start following an actor and his career, first of all you watch his best and most known movies. And in the most cases, these films is where they give their best and show their peak level and abilities.
What I demand from an actor is not to give his 100% every time. I demand he respects and serves his craft. So it's vital that he cares, not just receive the paycheck. Try to make something interesting, something groundbreaking... If you do that, then it's certain you'll show your top abilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Sept 10, 2019 22:31:30 GMT
Estoy entre las opciones 2 y 4. En
serio, alguien me explica la diferencia.
Creo, por ejemplo, en Documental sobre Marcello Mastroianni, en el que confesó que hizo varias películas malas por el dinero. Primero quería una casa, luego un auto, luego un auto mejor, y finalmente una casa cerca de la playa.
Pero supongo que incluso por las malas películas e incluso por las malas actuaciones, un gran actor podría aprender sobre sus fracasos.
Eso los hace geniales.
Así que admiro a Daniel Day Lewis, pero su filmografía es demasiado corta, con solo una horrible actuación (Nueve). Prefiero un Jack Nicholson. A veces es genial, a veces es divisivo, a veces sus películas no son buenas, pero siempre es divertido de ver.
When you have a turkey, act like a turkey, not as Anna Maganani in Roma città aperta
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,680 
Likes: 2,114
|
Post by cherry68 on Sept 11, 2019 9:18:31 GMT
Estoy entre las opciones 2 y 4. En serio, alguien me explica la diferencia. Creo, por ejemplo, en Documental sobre Marcello Mastroianni, en el que confesó que hizo varias películas malas por el dinero. Primero quería una casa, luego un auto, luego un auto mejor, y finalmente una casa cerca de la playa. Pero supongo que incluso por las malas películas e incluso por las malas actuaciones, un gran actor podría aprender sobre sus fracasos. Eso los hace geniales. Así que admiro a Daniel Day Lewis, pero su filmografía es demasiado corta, con solo una horrible actuación (Nueve). Prefiero un Jack Nicholson. A veces es genial, a veces es divisivo, a veces sus películas no son buenas, pero siempre es divertido de ver.
When you have a turkey, act like a turkey, not as Anna Maganani in Roma città aperta I like how you don't even try to speak English. 😂 Anyway, I think I understood what you mean (being Italian helps). Some actors actually need money...and don't care being in lame movies. But the point is, you can give a good performance even in a bad movie or working with poor material. |
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Sept 11, 2019 14:17:29 GMT
Estoy entre las opciones 2 y 4. En serio, alguien me explica la diferencia. Creo, por ejemplo, en Documental sobre Marcello Mastroianni, en el que confesó que hizo varias películas malas por el dinero. Primero quería una casa, luego un auto, luego un auto mejor, y finalmente una casa cerca de la playa. Pero supongo que incluso por las malas películas e incluso por las malas actuaciones, un gran actor podría aprender sobre sus fracasos. Eso los hace geniales. Así que admiro a Daniel Day Lewis, pero su filmografía es demasiado corta, con solo una horrible actuación (Nueve). Prefiero un Jack Nicholson. A veces es genial, a veces es divisivo, a veces sus películas no son buenas, pero siempre es divertido de ver.
When you have a turkey, act like a turkey, not as Anna Maganani in Roma città aperta I like how you don't even try to speak English. 😂 Anyway, I think I understood what you mean (being Italian helps). Some actors actually need money...and don't care being in lame movies. But the point is, you can give a good performance even in a bad movie or working with poor material. i wrote in English, but the computer translated to spanish. As I said before, if u r in a turkey, act as a turkey, less is more. For example Caligula is a horrible movie, and Peter O'Toole reciting Shakespeare didn't help. Helen Mirren was much better, because she "didn't act". So sometimes is better don't try to be Anna Magnani if u r in Plan 9 from Outer Space.- I think that an actor could have 3/10 movies could be turkeys, and still have a great and consistent filmography. Could be a turkey for several reasons: like being in automatic pilot, for being bad directed, being miscast, wasn't the propper material, had a bad day, had a bad edition, or just the film didn't work out at all.- Sometimes is the actor fault, sometimes not.- I don't think Brando ruined a movie in porpouse. He was awful as Napoleon in Desiree, maybe he ruined, but he wanted to be Napoleon. Apocalypsis Now is a great film no matter his ego, He couldn't save The Island of Dr Moreau or Christopher Columbus: The Discovery, even if he was comitted, clearly he wasn't. Of course there are always exceptions like Klaus Kinski.- |
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,532 
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by Javi on Sept 11, 2019 14:59:49 GMT
All that matters is if you're consistent or inconsistent with gusto... or not. If you're a consistent/inconsistent bore then there's a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 11, 2019 16:04:24 GMT
All that matters is if you're consistent or inconsistent with gusto... or not. If you're a consistent/inconsistent bore then there's a problem. Preach my brother......  |
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Sept 11, 2019 16:19:00 GMT
All that matters is if you're consistent or inconsistent with gusto... or not. If you're a consistent/inconsistent bore then there's a problem. Like Natalie Portman or Scarjo |
|
) but it's my opinion. Some performers like Denzel or Jeff Bridges or Dustin Hoffman or PSH or Dafoe have those rare slates of work that I consistently admire; at least the performances that matter anyways--the ones that are thought about and talked about most often and even some that aren't.
