|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Aug 2, 2022 22:39:30 GMT
What constitutes an actor "taking risks" on a project, in your opinion? And how do you differentiate that from an indifference for quality control?
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 2, 2022 23:02:03 GMT
For me, it largely has to do with what the actor brings to the table, and whether like I feel like there's any artistic integrity to what they do. Take Ryan Gosling. He easily could've gone the awards-bait route post-Half Nelson, but he contented himself in working with auteurs, sometimes to great success, other times not. But he pushed himself, developed his craft, showed an ambition in front of and behind the camera that I think has shaped him to be a much more interesting actor.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 2, 2022 23:14:57 GMT
What constitutes an actor "taking risks" on a project, in your opinion? And how do you differentiate that from an indifference for quality control? Marvelous thread topic btw - in general actors who are a big deal get to be a big deal by acting like they already are. I don't mean in terms of career - I mean in terms of their acting heft.........like Brad Pitt has had a great career and he's done a lot of "risky things" but he is not particularly a risk taking actor to me.........he's just an actor that's hard to get a handle on. That's not the same thing......he seems risky compared to most though. Day-Lewis - put it best - and you can argue him as very risk taking OR very playing it safe - I'm more in the first camp - you have to dare to look foolish - not just "off" but foolish - you have to balance sustaining a career with showing you could have had a whole OTHER big mainstream career ......without that sort of "stamp" or "branding" (though I hate that term) - your risks do not seem part of a coherent whole - but seem random. Quality control is usually the people you surround yourself with - writers, directors, co-stars - and most big actors have co-star approvals. A risk is not necessarily playing against type but it can be that........accents can sometimes be a risk, playing outside your ethnicity (used to be a HUGE deal - now its practically forbidden), taking a role where you are NOT a star - turning your charisma off (almost never happens for Hollywood leading men); for a lot of male actors it can be playing generously opposite a female which most of the male GOATs (not all) struggle with; comedy can be a big risk for some; playing gay for a man is still a risk which is absurd in 2022......... for females who are attractive taking a role that turns sex off is always a risk......singing in a role for a non-singer can be a risk........period roles can be a risk........Shakespeare can be a risk ........other times it's not .......etc  |
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Aug 3, 2022 0:03:26 GMT
I think Pitt has had a pretty marvelous career, but very few of his triumphs I'd characterize as risky. Maybe his work in Snatch? Pitt's worked with as many top directors as Leo, with only the occasional one way out of their prime (Zemeckis).
I love Gosling, but I do wonder if he's hamstrung himself on some level. I almost always find his performances fascinating, with something to merit them, but why not target major directors more often? Spielberg? Scorsese? Tarantino? Ang Lee? Fincher? Mendes? Coens? Boyle? Cameron? Like I would trade Drive and Only God Forgives for Gosling in a True Lies-esque film from Cameron in a second!
|
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Aug 4, 2022 17:19:58 GMT
Wow an interesting unanswered question. Because at least in my case I can only differentiate them case by case.
For example, an actor who comes from abroad, comes to do anything in Hollywood.
Is it really a risk, or is it the price of trying to be someone universally loved?
For a young actor to play the role of the outsider instead of the boy next door can be a big risk. But when it consolidates. He seeks quality roles and makes more truly risky movies that could destroy his rising career. Example Di Caprio.-
I think that Jake Gyllenhaal and James Franco (RIP?) are the type of actors who risk doing anything, caring very little what others may think.
That's why they have few Oscar nominations and few commercial successes.-
Even in these cases, it can be contradictory, because they come from families of millionaire artists and they can afford that luxury.
If the Gyllhenhaals, the Francos, Michelle Williams or Lupita Nyongo make such a horrible movie, they can't recover their career from it. Well, there is no drama for them, they will continue working in their lucrative family business. At most they will be punished with selling timeshares in the Cayman Islands for a couple of years.- |
|
