|
|
Post by Allenism on Apr 28, 2023 15:10:04 GMT
I think Adjani has more formidable peaks while Cotillard is rangier and arguably can do more with lesser material.
|
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Apr 28, 2023 15:17:01 GMT
I don't wanna hear some bad takes about how only this board and former Movie Awards likes Adjani nonsense like I saw the last time.
Just because some people don't like to go before the Obama administration often doesn't mean nobody liked Adjani from the mid 70s thru mid 90s.
Adjani, for me. Even tho Cotillard in 2 specific movies (Vie en Rose, Two Days One Night) hit really high. But Adjani just has more good stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Apr 28, 2023 15:24:48 GMT
Adjani is fierce, but Marion all the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 28, 2023 15:25:07 GMT
Adjani is stupendously good but I still gotta go with Marion.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 28, 2023 15:59:12 GMT
This is one of those comparisons that makes less sense - if you think about French actresses overall: * "Range" is another way of saying "can play more parts well, but fewer with great distinction" - a great actor has to have some range but it's far less important than vividness........Matt Damon has range.........where's Matt Damon among American actors....yeah, exactly not very high * Is Cotllard a better actress than Viard? I dunno, but no one would think to make that comparison because Viard isn't a comparable star and she kind of has more range too (arguable I guess)......it's usually not a great metric because it's like 5th tie-breaker in comparisons between actors ...... * Gonna say what I always say, performers from the 70s almost always win because the movies are better in the 70s ......also for Cotillard's work she's not as funny as Adjani can be which is range too.....and "doing more with lesser material" is never, ever, ever a thing to me - that's like comparing great actors lesser work - and worse their hypothetical lesser work - that is specifically a bad path to go down in comparisons across all actors - not just these two AdjaniHowever - Adjani has more or less stopped working hard and has entered the "taking victory laps" phase of her career for a looooooooooong time - Cotillard may have much more great work ahead of her - she's not 50 yet after all......she's in Lee this year, that could be Oscar baity all by itself.....  |
|
|
|
Post by Allenism on Apr 28, 2023 16:44:05 GMT
This is one of those comparisons that makes less sense - if you think about French actresses overall: * "Range" is another way of saying "can play more parts well, but fewer with great distinction" - a great actor has to have some range but it's far less important than vividness........Matt Damon has range.........where's Matt Damon among American actors....yeah, exactly not very high * Is Cotllard a better actress than Viard? I dunno, but no one would think to make that comparison because Viard isn't a comparable star and she kind of has more range too (arguable I guess)......it's usually not a great metric because it's like 5th tie-breaker in comparisons between actors ...... * Gonna say what I always say, performers from the 70s almost always win because the movies are better in the 70s ......also for Cotillard's work she's not as funny as Adjani can be which is range too.....and "doing more with lesser material" is never, ever, ever a thing to me - that's like comparing great actors lesser work - and worse their hypothetical lesser work - that is specifically a bad path to go down in comparisons across all actors - not just these two AdjaniHowever - Adjani has more or less stopped working hard and has entered the "taking victory laps" phase of her career for a looooooooooong time - Cotillard may have much more great work ahead of her - she's not 50 yet after all......she's in Lee this year, that could be Oscar baity all by itself..... Christ, if you don't like the question, then why go on a ramble about it? Oh, right... |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 28, 2023 16:49:15 GMT
This is one of those comparisons that makes less sense - if you think about French actresses overall: * "Range" is another way of saying "can play more parts well, but fewer with great distinction" - a great actor has to have some range but it's far less important than vividness........Matt Damon has range.........where's Matt Damon among American actors....yeah, exactly not very high * Is Cotllard a better actress than Viard? I dunno, but no one would think to make that comparison because Viard isn't a comparable star and she kind of has more range too (arguable I guess)......it's usually not a great metric because it's like 5th tie-breaker in comparisons between actors ...... * Gonna say what I always say, performers from the 70s almost always win because the movies are better in the 70s ......also for Cotillard's work she's not as funny as Adjani can be which is range too.....and "doing more with lesser material" is never, ever, ever a thing to me - that's like comparing great actors lesser work - and worse their hypothetical lesser work - that is specifically a bad path to go down in comparisons across all actors - not just these two AdjaniHowever - Adjani has more or less stopped working hard and has entered the "taking victory laps" phase of her career for a looooooooooong time - Cotillard may have much more great work ahead of her - she's not 50 yet after all......she's in Lee this year, that could be Oscar baity all by itself..... Christ, if you don't like the question, then why go on a ramble about it? Oh, right... It's not that I don't like the question exactly - just the metrics within the question - if you don't like my response ignore it ........why are you so sensitive anyway ...... Oh, right ......... |
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Apr 28, 2023 16:58:47 GMT
Adjani has hit way higher highs so her .
|
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Apr 28, 2023 18:04:11 GMT
I think Cotillard seems like she has more ambitions as a performer in terms of the kind of stuff she wants to do, but I like Adjani's peaks (performative, Cotillard has the better physical peaks) far more, and she feels far more effortless and triumphant when she fucking goes for it. Cotillard is probably a little better in English, which helps, and obviously she does have years ahead of her to keep adding to her body of work.
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,538 
Likes: 1,628
|
Post by Javi on Apr 28, 2023 18:37:40 GMT
Adjani for everything, of course.
|
|
meowy
New Member
Posts: 159
Likes: 19
|
Post by meowy on Apr 28, 2023 18:54:59 GMT
Adjani is the best French actress of all time followed by Signoret. Cotillard is a brilliant actress, one of the best working in films today, her portrayal of Edith Piaf is breathtaking.
|
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Apr 30, 2023 0:15:52 GMT
I adore them both for what they bring and what each one brings couldn't be more different from the other. I'm going to go with Adjani because when you watch her performances, they leave such a particular imprint that you can't find with any other actress. She's a special one. I was watching a scene from Nosferatu and thinking, "How do you play opposite Klaus Kinski as Dracula and manage to be more starling than he is?"  |
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Apr 30, 2023 5:26:49 GMT
This is one of those comparisons that makes less sense - if you think about French actresses overall: * "Range" is another way of saying "can play more parts well, but fewer with great distinction" - a great actor has to have some range but it's far less important than vividness........Matt Damon has range.........where's Matt Damon among American actors....yeah, exactly not very high * Is Cotllard a better actress than Viard? I dunno, but no one would think to make that comparison because Viard isn't a comparable star and she kind of has more range too (arguable I guess)......it's usually not a great metric because it's like 5th tie-breaker in comparisons between actors ...... * Gonna say what I always say, performers from the 70s almost always win because the movies are better in the 70s ......also for Cotillard's work she's not as funny as Adjani can be which is range too.....and "doing more with lesser material" is never, ever, ever a thing to me - that's like comparing great actors lesser work - and worse their hypothetical lesser work - that is specifically a bad path to go down in comparisons across all actors - not just these two AdjaniHowever - Adjani has more or less stopped working hard and has entered the "taking victory laps" phase of her career for a looooooooooong time - Cotillard may have much more great work ahead of her - she's not 50 yet after all......she's in Lee this year, that could be Oscar baity all by itself..... Matt Damon is very high to me. I don't get where this disrespect is coming from. Look at him in Good Will Hunting, The Departed, and True Grit. Utterly different performances on a supremely high level of acting. And I can go into another dozen performances from him. He's not some figure to be waved off. I see that you grant him range, but you say he lacks vividness? Can you elaborate on that a bit? |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 30, 2023 7:19:26 GMT
This is one of those comparisons that makes less sense - if you think about French actresses overall: * "Range" is another way of saying "can play more parts well, but fewer with great distinction" - a great actor has to have some range but it's far less important than vividness........Matt Damon has range.........where's Matt Damon among American actors....yeah, exactly not very high * Is Cotllard a better actress than Viard? I dunno, but no one would think to make that comparison because Viard isn't a comparable star and she kind of has more range too (arguable I guess)......it's usually not a great metric because it's like 5th tie-breaker in comparisons between actors ...... * Gonna say what I always say, performers from the 70s almost always win because the movies are better in the 70s ......also for Cotillard's work she's not as funny as Adjani can be which is range too.....and "doing more with lesser material" is never, ever, ever a thing to me - that's like comparing great actors lesser work - and worse their hypothetical lesser work - that is specifically a bad path to go down in comparisons across all actors - not just these two AdjaniHowever - Adjani has more or less stopped working hard and has entered the "taking victory laps" phase of her career for a looooooooooong time - Cotillard may have much more great work ahead of her - she's not 50 yet after all......she's in Lee this year, that could be Oscar baity all by itself..... Matt Damon is very high to me. I don't get where this disrespect is coming from. Look at him in Good Will Hunting, The Departed, and True Grit. Utterly different performances on a supremely high level of acting. And I can go into another dozen performances from him. He's not some figure to be waved off. I see that you grant him range, but you say he lacks vividness? Can you elaborate on that a bit? I meant it like where would Matt Damon be on an all-time American actors list - there's nothing wrong with him at all - but he isn't an "elite" alll time actor .......which is what Adjani is in French film history - Adjani is a no shit Top 10 French actress ever ......Damon isn't that for American males. The metric of "range" - while nice to have is not in itself a defining one .....Damon certainly won't hurt your movie, often he'll help it - but rarely will he "make" your movie. I didn't mean to pick on him or take a shot at him........ That's why I gave the example of Karin Viard - a very fine actress - with much range imo but who no one would ever compare to Adjani / Cotillard because she seems much more "anonymous" but also because she just isn't as good or as impactful ......."range" - and often people use it when they mean something else anyway ("versatilty" usually) - didn't fit in a comparison with Adjani / Cotillard imo |
|
|
|
Post by Allenism on Apr 30, 2023 16:53:35 GMT
I adore them both for what they bring and what each one brings couldn't be more different from the other. I'm going to go with Adjani because when you watch her performances, they leave such a particular imprint that you can't find with any other actress. She's a special one. I was watching a scene from Nosferatu and thinking, "How do you play opposite Klaus Kinski as Dracula and manage to be more starling than he is?" I think it's because she looks like a porcelain doll but then a bunch of crazy comes out of her pores. She's one of those rare performers who can pull off big as compellingly as she can pull off small. Marion can do both as well, but I think she hits her stride the hardest in moments of quiet pathos. |
|
