|
Post by countjohn on May 25, 2023 22:21:12 GMT
Mentally picturing Sleuth/Marathon Man era Olivier calmly saying "King Kong ain't got shit on me" and I kind of wish I could see this now. Honestly, Olivier may not have played Alonzo Harris as Washington played him (nor should he), but I can absolutely see him bringing that level of mercurial unpredictability to a juicy villainous role like that just as effectively. I could easily have seen Olivier doing one of those gritty early 70's cop movies as a cranky old cop who falls in with drug dealers after they gut his pension or something. So that's not really the movie I would have picked for something he couldn't do.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 25, 2023 22:34:01 GMT
Mentally picturing Sleuth/Marathon Man era Olivier calmly saying "King Kong ain't got shit on me" and I kind of wish I could see this now. Honestly, Olivier may not have played Alonzo Harris as Washington played him (nor should he), but I can absolutely see him bringing that level of mercurial unpredictability to a juicy villainous role like that just as effectively. I don't see it. At all. For Olivier, like most British actors of his time, till the onset of Day-Lewis and Oldman in the 80's and 90's (who grew up on 70's American cinema), believably playing lived-in American characters was a struggle. It would come across extremely phony. Olivier would have been all over-enunciated vowels to sound American and exaggerated tics to play someone like Alonzo Harris. I genuinely think he'd have been awful if he attempted it, especially having to talk in "street vernacular". If you asked me whether Gary Oldman could have done Training Day convincingly , I'd say yes in a heartbeat. But Olivier would embarrass himself, imho (I actually think Olivier somewhat envied his wife Vivien Leigh because she, rarely among Brits of their era, could play Americans with pitch perfect conviction and specificity). Olivier ain't pulling off no badass LA Street Cop. He's got range, but not that kind of range. Yes he could play all sorts of villains, but he could never pull of Training Day in the form it's supposed to be in. He'd have to turn Alonzo into a German SS Officer, or something he could wrap his head around
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 25, 2023 22:35:07 GMT
Honestly, Olivier may not have played Alonzo Harris as Washington played him (nor should he), but I can absolutely see him bringing that level of mercurial unpredictability to a juicy villainous role like that just as effectively. I don't see it. At all. For Olivier, like most British actors of his time, till the onset of Day-Lewis and Oldman in the 80's and 90's (who grew up on 70's American cinema), believably playing lived-in American characters was a struggle. It would come across extremely phony. Olivier would have been all over-enunciated vowels to sound American and exaggerated tics to play someone like Alonzo Harris. I genuinely think he'd have been awful if he attempted it, especially having to talk in "street vernacular". If you asked me whether Gary Oldman could have done Training Day convincingly , I'd say yes in a heartbeat. But Olivier would embarrass himself, imho (I actually think Olivier somewhat envied his wife Vivien Leigh because she, rarely among Brits of their era, could play Americans with pitch perfect conviction and specificity). Olivier ain't pulling off no badass LA Street Cop. He's got range, but not that kind of range. Who said he had to play an American?
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 25, 2023 22:38:04 GMT
I don't see it. At all. For Olivier, like most British actors of his time, till the onset of Day-Lewis and Oldman in the 80's and 90's (who grew up on 70's American cinema), believably playing lived-in American characters was a struggle. It would come across extremely phony. Olivier would have been all over-enunciated vowels to sound American and exaggerated tics to play someone like Alonzo Harris. I genuinely think he'd have been awful if he attempted it, especially having to talk in "street vernacular". If you asked me whether Gary Oldman could have done Training Day convincingly , I'd say yes in a heartbeat. But Olivier would embarrass himself, imho (I actually think Olivier somewhat envied his wife Vivien Leigh because she, rarely among Brits of their era, could play Americans with pitch perfect conviction and specificity). Olivier ain't pulling off no badass LA Street Cop. He's got range, but not that kind of range. Who said he had to play an American? Look at the edit I made just before your reply. He'd have to turn Alonzo into a German SS Officer or something he could wrap his head around. Point is, he couldn't convincingly play an LA Street Cop who had to talk in street vernacular and be believable with it. So he couldn't do Training Day as it's meant to be. It's like expecting Olivier to be able to play Travis Bickle. He couldn't do it. He could attempt it, but as with Alonzo, it wouldn't be good enough or believable enough, imho.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 25, 2023 23:36:33 GMT
Meh - not every actor can do everything - range matters but it's not a major metric imo - it's more like consistency - it helps if you have it, but..........I personally agree with the Washington assessment by Cinema Archives - are there lesser actors ahead of him........yes...........are there better actors still to come......maybe like I said Finney is in my top 10 and he likely will miss the whole list ffs
Olivier can't play Alonzo Harris and Washington can't play Archie Rice (The Entertainer).....no big deal.......that's why you stick to country and era usually .......
On another note I would expect Olivier to be hitting the list soon himself - there are still some big ones missing Hanks, Cagney, Hopkins, Duvall, Dafoe, Bridges, Cage, Penn, Tracy and a whole bunch of non-English speaking actors......
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 26, 2023 6:05:23 GMT
Not sure why Washington would have any issues doing The Entertainer. It's a originally a stage play, and Washington has specialised in doing major and varied stage roles his entire career ( The Emperor Jones, Othello, Julius Ceasar, Richard III, Fences, A Raisin In The Sun, The Iceman Cometh etc). He could even do it as a Brit (he's played British before in For Queen And Country and uses a neutral English accent in things like Much Ado About Nothing. Washington can do accents. He just needs to use a dialect coach to get specific ). Archie Rice is much more within Washington's capability than Alonzo Harris is within Olivier's. Range is a major/key metric in assessing an actors greatness. Let's not be silly . The likes of Blanchett, Streep, Day-Lewis, Kidman, Hopkins etc reputations are based almost entirely around the breadth of their range. If they didn't have it and display it in the abundance they did, they'd be be classed alongside Julia Roberts, John Wayne, Kevin Costner or Richard Gere as entertaining, but more limited performers. You can have a lot of range and still not be "great", but pretty much every great actor should have a fairly broad range. The fact that this Archive website dude doesn't even appear to understand what range is for an actor, is kinda hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 26, 2023 14:04:03 GMT
Range is a major/key metric in assessing an actors greatnessWhat you were describing isn't even "range" - it's "versatility" - it pertains to text - "believably playing lived-in American characters" - one pertains to cultural / written characteristics .........the other - "range" - to our shared human qualities - "range of emotions"..... As you used it is not a "key metric" at all........ across different eras and countries. It is not Laurence Olivier's fault that he was born in 1907 or Denzel Washington's fault that he would struggle to play a standup comic unless he saw Laurence Olivier create it first because he's never had a comic triumph in 50 films - not even one as painfully unfunny as Archie Rice
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 26, 2023 14:40:15 GMT
Yeah, now you're just making things up to try and get Archive dude off the hook for his lack of knowledge about the craft of acting. Range and versatility are pretty much interchangeable terms in acting. You are now getting into semantic territory to muddy the waters, which is a trick you often use when you know you are in the wrong about something, but won't concede to being wrong (we've done this too long ). The guy doesn't know what he's talking about Range in acting refers to both the variety of characters and emotions an actor can believably play. Woody Allen has limited acting range, because he can only play a specific version of himself . He cannot believably fit into many roles, scenarios, settings etc because his character range is very limited.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 26, 2023 14:46:02 GMT
For me, range is the amount of emotions that one is capable of playing effectively. Versatility is how chameleonic an actor is in disappearing into a role and veering away from their preferred mode. One kind of relies on the other, but I do consider them distinct.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 26, 2023 14:55:46 GMT
For me, range is the amount of emotions that one is capable of playing effectively. Versatility is how chameleonic an actor is in disappearing into a role and veering away from their preferred mode. One kind of relies on the other, but I do consider them distinct. That's fine, if it's your personal thing, but no acting school defines any such difference between the terms range and versatility. Judi Dench has never been a "chameleon", but she is commonly referred to and is legitimately considered to be a versatile actress. Lots of actors who aren't "chameleons" are considered to be versatile ( Gene Hackman, Robert Duvall, Ed Harris, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen etc). People misuse and misunderstand terms in acting a lot. The term "character actor" is another one. A lot of people use the term incorrectly.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 26, 2023 16:39:03 GMT
For me, range is the amount of emotions that one is capable of playing effectively. Versatility is how chameleonic an actor is in disappearing into a role and veering away from their preferred mode. One kind of relies on the other, but I do consider them distinct. This is exactly right ^ it is sort of the equivalent of the words sensual and sensuous - which are linked and used interchangeably all the time ....... but are also distinct.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on May 26, 2023 22:33:49 GMT
Not sure why we're questioning Olivier's range, versatility, or whatever you want to call it. Hamlet, Heathcliff, Henry V, Archie Rice, Dr. Astrov from Uncle Vanya, his romantic hero parts (Mr. Drarcy, Rebecca, That Hamilton Woman, Princess and the Showgirl) and the moustache twirling villain roles he played very well later on are all very different from each other. It's like Stephen talked about, it's more to do with emotional range than things like changing your appearance which some people put way too much stock in and leads to stuff like Fraser in The Whale winning BA. So yes, Olivier playing an African-American cop or a young man in the 70's weren't things that were going to happen because he was a white guy born in the early 20th century, that doesn't mean he can't cover broadly the same emotional range it would take to play Alonzo Harris or Travis Bickle in reworked versions of the stories to suit him.
Explicitly talking about film acting Olivier would have to only be around top 20 of all time for me just because he was selective with more of a focus on theater in his prime years and appeared in a bunch of crap later with the random good movie like Marathon Man tossed in once in a while. If you wanted to put Denzel for instance ahead of him as having the better film career I guess I'd get it. But on pure acting talent he's up there at the top with anybody, like DDL or Brando, who also maybe had their movie careers held back by other factors (extreme selectivity in DDL's case and getting lazy later on with Brando).
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 26, 2023 23:58:52 GMT
Not sure why we're questioning Olivier's range, versatility, or whatever you want to call it. Hamlet, Heathcliff, Henry V, Archie Rice, Dr. Astrov from Uncle Vanya, his romantic hero parts (Mr. Drarcy, Rebecca, That Hamilton Woman, Princess and the Showgirl) and the moustache twirling villain roles he played very well later on are all very different from each other. It's like Stephen talked about, it's more to do with emotional range than things like changing your appearance which some people put way too much stock in and leads to stuff like Fraser in The Whale winning BA. So yes, Olivier playing an African-American cop or a young man in the 70's weren't things that were going to happen because he was a white guy born in the early 20th century, that doesn't mean he can't cover broadly the same emotional range it would take to play Alonzo Harris or Travis Bickle in reworked versions of the stories to suit him. Explicitly talking about film acting Olivier would have to only be around top 20 of all time for me just because he was selective with more of a focus on theater in his prime years and appeared in a bunch of crap later with the random good movie like Marathon Man tossed in once in a while. If you wanted to put Denzel for instance ahead of him as having the better film career I guess I'd get it. But on pure acting talent he's up there at the top with anybody, like DDL or Brando, who also maybe had their movie careers held back by other factors (extreme selectivity in DDL's case and getting lazy later on with Brando). Range is range. Character range and emotional range. I'm not sure why we are suddenly trying to redefine "range" as only an emotional thing. To me that's utterly ridiculous. It's not an either or thing. Both are equally important in a great actor (and character range isn't just about disguises/make-up etc. It's primarily about believability as different types of characters, class stratas, eras etc ). If you have emotional range, but can only play one character, you are still a fairly limited actor. Jason Bateman (for example) has a pretty good emotional range, but his character range is fairly limited. Not Woody Allen limited, but limited. And it stops him from being put up in the "great" category imho, even with excellent work like OzarkAlonzo Harris was not written as an African-American character. Bruce Willis, Gary Sinise and Tom Sizemore were originally in the frame to play Alonzo before Washington. It's why I said Gary Oldman (clearly not African-American in any way, shape or form) could have played Alonzo quite convincingly. I think a British Actor from around Olivier's era who could have played Alonzo (if you transplanted him to 2001 and he was the right age) was Robert Shaw. That's because I've seen Shaw play a believably-lived in American character in a way I've rarely seen from other British actors of his vintage (including Olivier), with his performance as Quint in Jaws. It was simply in Shaw's toolkit to do that. So I don't neccesarily go along with the belief that Olivier couldn't play Alonzo just because he was a white British guy born in the early 20th century. So was Shaw, yet I believe Shaw could pull off a modern badass LA Street Cop in Alonzo or a Popeye Doyle in The French Connection ( I couldn't imagine Olivier being credible as Popeye Doyle either. " Poughkeepsie!!! . Yet Shaw, I could actually see doing Popeye easily). Shaw was one of the few British actors of that era who could pull off those roles. I think it also helped that he was generally a more naturalistic and understated screen actor than a lot of his British peers, so he was a better fit for the more modern American film aesthetic from the 70's onwards. I don't think you'd have to do much to rework Shaw being a credible Alonzo (you can still keep it in LA, still keep it on the streets, still keep him a badass talking street vernacular, have him intimidating Latino gangs etc), wheras with Olivier it'd have to become a completely different project entirely, because he's very poor casting. I've seen more than enough of Olivier's work to know parts like Alonzo or Popeye are not in his arsenal/toolkit. There's probably a bunch of things Olivier could do that Shaw couldn't, so it's horses for courses. I wasn't actually questioning Olivier's general range/versatility (emotional or character), even though I think a lot of his film work hasn't aged well and feels too theatrical (that Othello clip of Olivier I posted for example, is not good film acting to me, though it might have looked good on stage). He's obviously got a lot of range in all departments. I just used him as an example of someone who is considered to have as much range as any actor who ever lived, yet when you look at his overall skillset, Washington can be argued to have as much range as him (he can do all the classics on stage and screen etc), and could also play roles Olivier couldn't. Obviously no actor is suited for everything (including Washington), but it's actually meant as a positive comparison for Washington
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on May 27, 2023 5:04:22 GMT
A lot of that stuff still comes down to external things like age, ethnicity, and just your general physical appearance. Like in the previous Oldman discussion a lot of the reason he didn't get more lead roles is because even in his younger days he was a fairly average looking guy by Hollywood standards. He was never going to get DDL's romantic lead stuff like Age of Innocence, Last of the Mohicans, or Phantom Thread later on (or be considered for Bond or Batman). That has zero to do with Oldman's talent, it may limit the "types" he can play but that doesn't really have anything to do with his acting ability.
The Woody Allen example goes beyond that, he's funny and good at acting neurotic or annoyed but that's about it. It works in his own movies but he can't run the full gamut of human emotions for you. Not intimately familiar with Jason Bateman's filmography so I could be wrong but all I've ever seen him do is generic nice guy roles, so again, that has to do with his not replicating the full spectrum of emotions, not being able to play a type.
Love Robert Shaw, though, so we agree on that. Wish he'd gotten more big time dramatic roles, he could have been as good if not better than Hackman in The French Connection for instance.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 27, 2023 5:32:01 GMT
A lot of that stuff still comes down to external things like age, ethnicity, and just your general physical appearance. Like in the previous Oldman discussion a lot of the reason he didn't get more lead roles is because even in his younger days he was a fairly average looking guy by Hollywood standards. He was never going to get DDL's romantic lead stuff like Age of Innocence, Last of the Mohicans, or Phantom Thread later on (or be considered for Bond or Batman). That has zero to do with Oldman's talent, it may limit the "types" he can play but that doesn't really have anything to do with his acting ability. The Woody Allen example goes beyond that, he's funny and good at acting neurotic or annoyed but that's about it. It works in his own movies but he can't run the full gamut of human emotions for you. Not intimately familiar with Jason Bateman's filmography so I could be wrong but all I've ever seen him do is generic nice guy roles, so again, that has to do with his not replicating the full spectrum of emotions, not being able to play a type. Love Robert Shaw, though, so we agree on that. Wish he'd gotten more big time dramatic roles, he could have been as good if not better than Hackman in The French Connection for instance. Good points and great discussion Yeah, I also wonder why Robert Shaw doesn't get more discussion in all-time great screen actor debates. Maybe not enough big lead roles ? As you say, getting something like The French Connection could have really propelled him into the upper echelon leading man status. The guy was an utter badass of an actor in just about everything I've seen him in, and he crushed so many supporting parts. Amazing range, and like I said a more naturalistic screen acting style than a lot of his British contemporaries. From Russia With Love, A Man For All Seasons, The Sting, The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three, Jaws, Black Sunday....had he lived past 1978, he'd probably have eventually won an Oscar and taken an elder statesman position similar to Christopher Plummer. But he may have been an even better screen actor than Plummer, which is high praise indeed, because Plummer was exceptional as well.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 27, 2023 11:00:49 GMT
Givng "Cinema Archives" an opportunity to defend their metrics / criteria about the list - who is on it, who's off it and why they placed where they did in it. Sort of like my "the greatest actors are in the greatest scenes in the greatest movies often times for the greatest directors" thing....... * There's a running conversation on the Cinema Archives board with a poster named "David O" - the "O" stands for "Zero" because that is his / her IQ - where this ^ cones up: * Cinema Archives defending Washington being @ 43 and not higher: You look at that top end resume of work in great films (it is lacking)- and wonder why he (Washington) isn’t closer to spot 75-80. This is the right spot here (#43).* Cinema Archives defending filmography in general: The term “best” works here still. This isn’t “top 100 most talented actors but wish they had made better career decisions”.Anyway we'll see who is next up........
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 27, 2023 13:28:39 GMT
" if you weren't posting about this list ....." - thank you for reading it just because I am posting it, David O.! Number 44 - Chishû Ryû: "In typical Ozu fashion, Ryû is known for having the tremendous gift of subtlety. In countless scenes in great films throughout the Ozu oeuvre, Ryû is hit with tough news, emotional situations, death, and tragedy – and he sublimely underplays it all. This is exemplary acting that has aged so well. Ryû worked with Ozu in almost all of his films."
1 -De Niro 2 -Stewart 3 -Brando 4 -Mifune 5 -Pacino 6 -Nicholson 7 -DDL B -Bogart 9 -Grant 10-Chaplin 11-Mastroianni 12-Leung 13-Wayne 14-Fonda 15-Pitt 16-DiCaprio 17-Newman 18-Hackman 19-Eastwood 20-Dustin Hoffman 21-Holden 22-Mitchum 23-Von Sydow 24-Jannings 25-Delon 26-Belmondo 27-Buster Keaton 28-PSH 29-Kinski 30-Pesci 31-Lancaster 32-Clift 33-Joaquin Phoenix 34-Trintignant 35-Cruise 36-Kirk Douglas 37-Murray 38-Jean Gabin 39-Takashi Shimura 40-Norton 41-Hawke 42-Gable 43-Washington 44-Chishû Ryû’
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on May 27, 2023 17:42:56 GMT
A lot of that stuff still comes down to external things like age, ethnicity, and just your general physical appearance. Like in the previous Oldman discussion a lot of the reason he didn't get more lead roles is because even in his younger days he was a fairly average looking guy by Hollywood standards. He was never going to get DDL's romantic lead stuff like Age of Innocence, Last of the Mohicans, or Phantom Thread later on (or be considered for Bond or Batman). That has zero to do with Oldman's talent, it may limit the "types" he can play but that doesn't really have anything to do with his acting ability. The Woody Allen example goes beyond that, he's funny and good at acting neurotic or annoyed but that's about it. It works in his own movies but he can't run the full gamut of human emotions for you. Not intimately familiar with Jason Bateman's filmography so I could be wrong but all I've ever seen him do is generic nice guy roles, so again, that has to do with his not replicating the full spectrum of emotions, not being able to play a type. Love Robert Shaw, though, so we agree on that. Wish he'd gotten more big time dramatic roles, he could have been as good if not better than Hackman in The French Connection for instance. Good points and great discussion Yeah, I also wonder why Robert Shaw doesn't get more discussion in all-time great screen actor debates. Maybe not enough big lead roles ? As you say, getting something like The French Connection could have really propelled him into the upper echelon leading man status. The guy was an utter badass of an actor in just about everything I've seen him in, and he crushed so many supporting parts. Amazing range, and like I said a more naturalistic screen acting style than a lot of his British contemporaries. From Russia With Love, A Man For All Seasons, The Sting, The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three, Jaws, Black Sunday....had he lived past 1978, he'd probably have eventually won an Oscar and taken an elder statesman position similar to Christopher Plummer. But he may have been an even better screen actor than Plummer, which is high praise indeed, because Plummer was exceptional as well. I am one of the bigger Shaw fans here and if I'd voted in our last greatest actors poll I certainly would have had him on my ballot and higher than a lot of people might think. Quint in Jaws and his one scene wonder as Henry VIII in A Man For All Seasons are both all timers in the sup. actor category for me and he's terrific in a couple early lead drama roles he had in a filmed production of The Birthday Party and The Hireling which won Golden Palm. But he moved away from that stuff because he was kind of like Oldman in the sense that he openly said he acted for money and that it was just his job. So I'd imagine he got pretty good paychecks for the big string of 70's villain roles he did. Could have easily seen him doing some of the lead roles in the 70's like Newman's part in The Sting, the Finch or Holden parts in Network, or even something huge like Willard in Apocalypse Now, but he wasn't a big enough star for those because he never got the big breakout role. Definitely a shame he died because he seems like one of those guys who would have picked up a supporting actor win at some point in the 80's or 90's with all the big studio movies he did and I could easily see him doing "great old man" in that period too.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 27, 2023 18:00:55 GMT
Just as an fyi - Robert Shaw finished at 88 in the original list in 2018 before the current revisions - you can see that whole list in the 2nd post on page 1 also....
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,741
Likes: 4,856
|
Post by sirchuck23 on May 31, 2023 23:25:02 GMT
Hey!
Ralph Fiennes came it at #45…where is the real time update on this???
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 1, 2023 10:04:27 GMT
Fiennes @ 45 - I'll only go up to the top 50 because there's not much difference between actors this far down.....even by the lists specific metrics tbh I always say Fiennes is a lot closer to a generational (sort of) rival to DDL than people often lumped in with him -- Fiennes stars in 2 BP winners (DDL, zero as a star), he has great comedy performances and films (DDL not so much, though he does have it to a degree of comedy within drama), and a big theater rep (a stunning - Tony winning performance)......now of course DDL finished 7th and Fiennes 45th so the argument for DDL on this list makes even more sense too (film work only or mostly, TV sorta counts here at times, but theater does not .......DDL is a more dominant lead presence in his acting and filmography - in more obvious films etc) From Fiennes entry - a great observation:
"There are often little quiet stretches in his career since, but every few years there is a Spider, In Bruges, Deathly Hallows – maybe even 2022’s The Menu belongs here in that second or third tier, that acts as reminder of Fiennes’ abilities. He is unhinged in A Bigger Splash – so verbal – he never shuts up. Yet if one looks back, Fiennes can turn around and put together a disturbing portrayal like Spider with David Cronenberg where he hardly talks at all – just mumbles and facial tics. This, combined with the samples above from his best two films and performances, is acting range." 1 -De Niro 2 -Stewart 3 -Brando 4 -Mifune 5 -Pacino 6 -Nicholson 7 -DDL B -Bogart 9 -Grant 10-Chaplin 11-Mastroianni 12-Leung 13-Wayne 14-Fonda 15-Pitt 16-DiCaprio 17-Newman 18-Hackman 19-Eastwood 20-Dustin Hoffman 21-Holden 22-Mitchum 23-Von Sydow 24-Jannings 25-Delon 26-Belmondo 27-Buster Keaton 28-PSH 29-Kinski 30-Pesci 31-Lancaster 32-Clift 33-Joaquin Phoenix 34-Trintignant 35-Cruise 36-Kirk Douglas 37-Murray 38-Jean Gabin 39-Takashi Shimura 40-Norton 41-Hawke 42-Gable 43-Washington 44-Chishû Ryû’ 45-Ralph Fiennes
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 1, 2023 11:29:56 GMT
Hey! Ralph Fiennes came it at #45…where is the real time update on this??? The end goal was achieved. Real time updates all the way till #100 on this thing is just too much actual work now
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 1, 2023 12:51:23 GMT
Michael Caine in @46 From his write-up - which makes you realize how many of his most interesting roles came later, too - a little suprised he's over Hopkins in this list here but it's close - like I said lower down like this in the 40s it's basically one or two things that keep you down when you look at "metric criteria" etc. in film "Caine, unlike say an Anthony Hopkins or Christopher Plummer (two notorious sort of late peakers) was a big time star in the 1960s."1 -De Niro 2 -Stewart 3 -Brando 4 -Mifune 5 -Pacino 6 -Nicholson 7 -DDL B -Bogart 9 -Grant 10-Chaplin 11-Mastroianni 12-Leung 13-Wayne 14-Fonda 15-Pitt 16-DiCaprio 17-Newman 18-Hackman 19-Eastwood 20-Dustin Hoffman 21-Holden 22-Mitchum 23-Von Sydow 24-Jannings 25-Delon 26-Belmondo 27-Buster Keaton 28-PSH 29-Kinski 30-Pesci 31-Lancaster 32-Clift 33-Joaquin Phoenix 34-Trintignant 35-Cruise 36-Kirk Douglas 37-Murray 38-Jean Gabin 39-Takashi Shimura 40-Norton 41-Hawke 42-Gable 43-Washington 44-Chishû Ryû’ 45-Ralph Fiennes 46-Caine
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 3, 2023 12:58:06 GMT
Sean Penn in @ 47 -- like I said for the last 50 years on IMDB and on MAR: Cruise, Cage, Washington, Penn and Hanks (still not listed, might be next) are a lot closer to each other - as film actors - than they ever were close to the greatest American film actors: DePac, Nicholson, Brando, Hackman, Dustin Hoffman, etc.....they are generational greats not all time greats imo - unless they correct the gaps in their filmographies - and they all have gaps: Cruise - lack of significant deep dramatic roles; Cage filmography; Washington filmography and missing comedic work; Penn - especially a jaw-dropping disastrous last 15 years, Hanks missing a notable OUATITW-Fonda villain or 2 dark dramas From Penn's entry: "He can do a chameleon like disappearing act in a biopic (Milk) and carry a weaker Woody Allen archiveable film into the archives based on his performance almost single handedly (Sweet and Lowdown). Penn does not blink sitting across from great veteran performers like Christopher Walken and Al Pacino in At Close Range or Carlito’s Way."1 -De Niro 2 -Stewart 3 -Brando 4 -Mifune 5 -Pacino 6 -Nicholson 7 -DDL B -Bogart 9 -Grant 10-Chaplin 11-Mastroianni 12-Leung 13-Wayne 14-Fonda 15-Pitt 16-DiCaprio 17-Newman 18-Hackman 19-Eastwood 20-Dustin Hoffman 21-Holden 22-Mitchum 23-Von Sydow 24-Jannings 25-Delon 26-Belmondo 27-Buster Keaton 28-PSH 29-Kinski 30-Pesci 31-Lancaster 32-Clift 33-Joaquin Phoenix 34-Trintignant 35-Cruise 36-Kirk Douglas 37-Murray 38-Jean Gabin 39-Takashi Shimura 40-Norton 41-Hawke 42-Gable 43-Washington 44-Chishû Ryû’ 45-Ralph Fiennes 46-Caine 47-Penn
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jun 3, 2023 19:43:51 GMT
Penn has always been so try hard to me. The kind of guy who gives method actors a bad name and what DDL's detractors try to say he is. And he's gotten worse as he's gotten older, no joke his best performance is still Ridgemont High to me. None of the stuff from his 2000's heyday impresses me that much, he just comes off like a ham to me.
Don't think he's really on the level of any of those four guys listed as his generational peers. I am certainly no Cage fan either but something like Adaptation is the kind of un self conscious, genuinely emotive dramatic performance I feel safe in saying Penn just does not have in him at this point.
|
|