|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 26, 2020 3:20:49 GMT
I dunno, to me that's kind of strange tbh.........I mean stars/actors do that all the time and he's one of the stars, tough break, way it goes right? Fight Club, 20 years later, is still not that good (8.8, #11 on IMDB - GTFO), all 3 of those ladies aren't really necessarily "more" right for the role anyway (why not Uma Thurman?! Juliette Lewis?! Robin Wright?! throw a dart!). Is Edward Norton still (20 years later) talked about as a "great actor" ("wonderful, wonderful" in Janeane's words) instead of a guy "who gave some (not that many) great performances" - which is not the same thing at all............ and which is closer to the actual truth. I think Norton's career is most noteworthy for what it could have been at this point, rather than what it's been. His talent has never really been in question and all of his problems seem entirely self-inflicted. I'd agree but to me he's always been too highly praised tbh. Specifically there are things he could never shake that were a big problem to me - his nasally whiny voice for one thing carried to every role - and he had a sort of academic quality in his approach to roles which annoyed me. I do like him overall and I'd actually nod him the 3 times he got Oscar nominations which is nothing to sneeze at........... but sometimes there was a studied streak to his work - even the best work - that didn't feel like he brought much of himself into any role. I am not sure how "great" he ever was and he got dubbed "best of his generation" awfully quick back then.
|
|
|
Post by mattfincher on Feb 26, 2020 3:30:44 GMT
I think Norton's career is most noteworthy for what it could have been at this point, rather than what it's been. His talent has never really been in question and all of his problems seem entirely self-inflicted. I'd agree but to me he's always been too highly praised tbh. Specifically there are things he could never shake that were a big problem to me - his nasally whiny voice for one thing carried to every role - and he had a sort of academic quality in his approach to roles which annoyed me. I do like him overall and I'd actually nod him the 3 times he got Oscar nominations which is nothing to sneeze at........... but sometimes there was a studied streak to his work - even the best work - that didn't feel like he brought much of himself into any role. I am not sure how "great" he ever was and he got dubbed "best of his generation" awfully quick back then. I mean, he was "the guy" at the end of the 90s, even more so than Leo. At least in terms of perception of talent. Leo was always destined to be the bigger movie star, but he hadn't met Scorsese yet and hadn't delivered a great adult performance. But if you listen to the guys who worked with Norton around then like Gere, Harrelson, Damon and Pitt in subsequent years, they were in awe of him. They thought he was gonna be Brando.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Feb 26, 2020 3:47:05 GMT
I mean, he was "the guy" at the end of the 90s, even more so than Leo. At least in terms of perception of talent. Leo was always destined to be the bigger movie star, but he hadn't met Scorsese yet and hadn't delivered a great adult performance. But if you listen to the guys who worked with Norton around then like Gere, Harrelson, Damon and Pitt in subsequent years, they were in awe of him. They thought he was gonna be Brando. I think part of the narrative that built around Norton (not from his co-stars, who may have genuinely felt whatever they may have said, but from critics and entertainment journalists) also had to do with them wanting to replace DiCaprio as his generation's leading actor as it wasn't cool to like him anymore because of his matinee idol image after the successes of Romeo + Juliet and, in particular, Titanic. The Man in the Iron Mask being what it was didn't help matters. But DiCaprio always had his share of stalwarts in the industry. Kate Winslet dubbed him the actor of the century, Michael Keaton was basically calling him the best actor around, and Woody Allen was putting him up there with De Niro and Pacino. All of this was just drowned out by the noise surrounding Titanic and Edward Norton was the perfect alternative because there was no reason for anybody to dislike or detract him, especially after his uber macho performance in American History X brought him his Lead Actor nomination and there was no denying that he was ready for big boy parts.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 26, 2020 3:47:55 GMT
I mean, he was "the guy" at the end of the 90s, even more so than Leo. At least in terms of perception of talent. Leo was always destined to be the bigger movie star, but he hadn't met Scorsese yet and hadn't delivered a great adult performance. But if you listen to the guys who worked with Norton around then like Gere, Harrelson, Damon and Pitt in subsequent years, they were in awe of him. They thought he was gonna be Brando. I am not sure if some of that wasn't just looking for someone/anyone to be a Brando since River Phoenix had died fairly recently prior to when Norton emerged tbh. But yes, he certainly was the man of the moment back then. The irony of course is DiCap, Damon, PSH, Joaquin all of that generation I guess surpassed him........
|
|
|
Post by mattfincher on Feb 26, 2020 4:01:40 GMT
@good God: Well yes, the comparison of Norton and DiCaprio at the specific time I'm referencing isn't really fair since DiCaprio had yet to be given muscular adult roles like Norton had with American History X and Fight Club. But the reality is, there are very few male actors who got two acting noms before 30. And both performances were extremely distinctive and remain resonant. He had two Oscar nominations and a film that would grow to become iconic at 30. He was well on his way. pacinoyes : I mean, they surpassed Norton because Norton basically ruined his own career. They may have regardless, but we'll never know. It's quite sad, really. He's basically been limited to being a part of Wes Anderson's theatre company of actors and the only time he's been given a meaty role in the last decade, he was basically playing an iteration of/mocking himself. Then again, I can't claim it's unwarranted given what's been said about him. No one wants to work with an asshole.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Feb 26, 2020 4:09:20 GMT
@good God: Well yes, the comparison of Norton and DiCaprio at the specific time I'm referencing isn't really fair since DiCaprio had yet to be given muscular adult roles like Norton had with American History X and Fight Club. But the reality is, there are very few male actors who got two acting noms before 30. And both performances were extremely distinctive and remain resonant. He had two Oscar nominations and a film that would grow to become iconic at 30. He was well on his way. It's not a question of whether it was "fair" to DiCaprio or not. Popular perception is rarely fair and is largely down to chance or luck. By the end of the decade, Norton was (on paper) the more accomplished actor, so his status wasn't egregious by any means. I was just pointing out a factor that happened to benefit him.
|
|