|
Post by pupdurcs on May 24, 2023 0:43:06 GMT
Yeah, it's just another random "Greatest Actors" list from a movie website, and frankly I don't even agree with most of it, but the top 7 isn't completely awful . I wouldn't read much into it at all, just like most website lists. But it's only just published last month, so might as well give it some idle chatter. Sounds like this list is only really including actors/actresses from the post 1970's era, as the article makes a clear delineation between the "Golden Age" and "our time". So Brando, Olivier, Newman, Hepburn or anyone markedly pre-70's or "Golden Age" were not going to be ranked. Saying that, there are some huge omissions even with that caveat. No Pacino, Day-Lewis, Nicholson, Hopkins, Oldman or even my girl Nicole Kidman. Guess it shows how subjective these lists can be. I'll give this one a tiny bit of credit for giving Sigourney Weaver her due though, as she's oddly overlooked in these kind of lists. Anyway, here's the top 25: movieweb.com/greatest-actors-of-our-time25 Bryan Cranston
24 Natalie Portman
23 Scarlett Johansson
22 Charlize Theron
21 Keanu Reeves
20 Johnny Depp
19 Sigourney Weaver
18 Helena Bonham Carter
17 Christian Bale
16 Anne Hathaway
15 Leonardo DiCaprio
14 Morgan Freeman
13 Samuel L Jackson
12 Kate Winslet
11 Octavia Spencer
10 Tom Hanks
9 Julianne Moore
8 George Clooney
7 Joaquin Phoenix
6 Cate Blanchett
5 Marion Cotlliard
4 Viola Davis
3 Robert DeNiro
2 Meryl Streep
1 Denzel Washington
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on May 24, 2023 2:00:05 GMT
Yeah this is a pretty big oof, no Pacino, DDL, or Jack, especially with some of the people they included. Keanu Reeves isn't even a regular good actor, let alone better than any of them. Saying pretty much anyone off the top ten here is on the same level as those guys is a bit ridiculous even if I like them.
For positives I like Portman and Scarlett slipping into the back, cool that Octavia Spencer is so high, and that's a realistic placement for Leo when a lot of people would insist that he should be top 5 on a list like this since it's post 60's.
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,746
Likes: 4,863
|
Post by sirchuck23 on May 24, 2023 2:21:32 GMT
It’s better than that cinema archives website list
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 24, 2023 2:28:08 GMT
Yeah this is a pretty big oof, no Pacino, DDL, or Jack, especially with some of the people they included. Keanu Reeves isn't even a regular good actor, let alone better than any of them. Saying pretty much anyone off the top ten here is on the same level as those guys is a bit ridiculous even if I like them. For positives I like Portman and Scarlett slipping into the back, cool that Octavia Spencer is so high, and that's a realistic placement for Leo when a lot of people would insist that he should be top 5 on a list like this since it's post 60's. Honestly, I think I said as much when the New York Times played advocate for Reeves on their list a few years back, but he's pretty much the modern Clint Eastwood/John Wayne. Like with those guys, some people are always going to insist that they aren't great/good actors or are one-dimensional etc etc. But as with Eastwood and Wayne (who do often get on Greatest Actors lists over technically more skilled contemporaries like Frederic March or George C Scott), Reeves has reached such an iconic status with such a laconic acting style and undeniable screen presence, that others will insist he's a uniquely great movie actor that does things technically more skilled actors can't (I mean, Scorsese and DiCaprio wanted to cast him for The Devil In The White City, so his respect level as an actor has definitely jumped up a few notches in recent years). I'm somewhere in the middle on him. He may be the best action actor in Hollywood and he's gotten much better over the years and doesn't really throw in dud performances like he did earlier in his career. He can do a lot without much dialogue. I wouldn't rush out to watch him in a Broadway play, but I do think he's uniquely suited to film. He's going to keep ending up on more of these type of lists and always be a controversial choice. But again, if he's now equivalent to Wayne and Eastwood, that's to be expected.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 24, 2023 9:40:39 GMT
Yeah this is a pretty big oof, no Pacino, DDL, or Jack, especially with some of the people they included. Keanu Reeves isn't even a regular good actor, let alone better than any of them. Saying pretty much anyone off the top ten here is on the same level as those guys is a bit ridiculous even if I like them. For positives I like Portman and Scarlett slipping into the back, cool that Octavia Spencer is so high, and that's a realistic placement for Leo when a lot of people would insist that he should be top 5 on a list like this since it's post 60's. I dunno...I've often said that Christian Bale is basically Daniel Day-Lewis, if DDL worked regularly and consistently and was more willing to do commercial stuff. Less mystique around him compared to DDL, but still very highly regarded. I'm never surprised if Bale turns up in Greatest Actors lists. Not everyone is a Bale fan, but he's pretty much universally regarded as one of the top 3 film actors of his generation (along with DiCaprio and Phoenix), so I don't think it's ridiculous to place him in similar company as DDL, Pacino, Jack etc at this point in his career. Winslet is pretty widely regarded as one of the all-time great screen actresses (again I personally rate other actresses in her own era higher than her, but trying to be objective in a list like this, there's no reason why she can't be rated over someone like Pacino or DDL, especially if placements are limited due to not separating by gender). Samuel L Jackson for me is a very similar level to Nicholson, purely on an ability level and as an iconoclast (though, Nicholson easily crushes him in terms of accolades). The man should probably have won 4 Oscars for his work with Quentin Tarantino alone, yet has always been ridiculously overlooked when it comes to accolades like Oscars (at least he got his honorary Oscar recently). Pauline Kael once famously argued that Morgan Freeman was the "greatest living American actor" (and this was during the prime of DeNiro, Nicholson's, Pacino's careers in the 80's. And while Marlon Brando was still alive). Again, I don't love Freeman like that either, but it's also not weird to see him get in over people like Pacino, Jack etc on Greatest Actor lists. He's got that effortless style and gravitas that's generally associated with golden age legends like Spencer Tracy. And as I mention in my first post, I believe Sigourney Weaver deserves to be mentioned in any discussion of all-time great screen actors or actresses, so I comfortably put her in the same category of people like Jack, Pacino and DDL. Weaver was probably the most inspired pick on this list.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 24, 2023 11:27:31 GMT
Yeah this is a pretty big oof, no Pacino, DDL, or Jack, Basically it's just a clickbait list / adjective party like most lists - it certainly doesn't remotely / logically compare with the far better Cinema Archives list - which at least tells you how / why they are picking the actors they pick.......I mean people might not like that list - but it's clear why certain actors are and are not in the top 30 or so - and that list truly represents world cinema to some extent too (Von Sydow, Mastroianni, Mifune) This thing puts Clooney at 8 - ever - and provides this fascinating and deep assessment of his work (sarcasm): Best known for his time on the series ER, George Clooney is a household name in Hollywood. Holder of two Academy Awards and a Lifetime Achievement Award, Clooney is truly worthy of every accolade earned as he brings a presence to every role he takes on. Between From Dusk till Dawn to Hail, Caesar!, it would seem no content if off-limits for the actor.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 24, 2023 12:03:30 GMT
It’s better than that cinema archives website list True. Neither carries much weight though in the scheme of things, imho (though at least Movieweb is actually a professional, industry based review and editorial site that generates a profit. The other website is definitely more deliberately pretentious, but it mainly appears to be just a film fansite run by one guy with a highly inflated sense of their own opinion. I have no idea why were supposed to take his personal rankings of anything seriously beyond what anyone here or any other individual fan forum participant would say or list. He's literally just a fan with his own biases and a website, not Roger Ebert A.O Scott or Pauline Kael . )
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 24, 2023 12:42:52 GMT
List invalid.
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,746
Likes: 4,863
|
Post by sirchuck23 on May 24, 2023 12:51:58 GMT
It’s better than that cinema archives website list True. Neither carries much weight though in the scheme of things, imho (though at least Movieweb is actually a professional, industry based review and editorial site that generates a profit. The other website is definitely more deliberately pretentious, but it mainly appears to be just a film fansite run by one guy with a highly inflated sense of their own opinion. I have no idea why were supposed to take his personal rankings of anything seriously beyond what anyone here or any other individual fan forum participant would say or list. He's literally just a fan with his own biases and a website, not Roger Ebert A.O Scott or Pauline Kael . ) Right…yeah that list is something all right. John Wayne at #13? Well..I gotta problem with that pilgrim!
|
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 4,377
|
Post by Archie on May 24, 2023 12:56:11 GMT
Worst one so far. Portman, Clooney, and Keanu? Pleeeeeeeease
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 24, 2023 12:58:26 GMT
I'm not even a huge Portman fan, but isn't she getting Oscar buzz for her performance in Todd Haynes May/December?She's an odd one. Inconsistent and capable of being crushingly dull onscreen (especially in commercial projects or with weak direction), but hand her over to a major auteur and she can suddenly turn into Meryl Streep, capable of giving Oscar calibre performances at will. Closer, Black Swan, Jackie etc and now maybe this new one. I don't think I've ever come across an Oscar calibre actress (which she objectively is at times) more director dependent than Portman.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 24, 2023 13:09:15 GMT
True. Neither carries much weight though in the scheme of things, imho (though at least Movieweb is actually a professional, industry based review and editorial site that generates a profit. The other website is definitely more deliberately pretentious, but it mainly appears to be just a film fansite run by one guy with a highly inflated sense of their own opinion. I have no idea why were supposed to take his personal rankings of anything seriously beyond what anyone here or any other individual fan forum participant would say or list. He's literally just a fan with his own biases and a website, not Roger Ebert A.O Scott or Pauline Kael . ) Right…yeah that list is something all right. John Wayne at #13? Well..I gotta problem with that pilgrim! John Wayne at #13 ..... Yeah, all these lists are questionable to some extent. Wayne made some good movies with John Ford, but no.... Again though, it's hard to complain about the likes of Keanu Reeves when people put the likes of John Wayne that high up on all time great actor lists, with a straight face. Even George Clooney (though many here find him overrated) is a far, far better actor than Wayne.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 24, 2023 13:11:27 GMT
I'm not even a huge Portman fan, but isn't she getting Oscar buzz for her performance in Todd Haynes May/December?She's an odd one. Inconsistent and capable of being crushingly dull onscreen (especially in commercial projects or with weak direction), but hand her over to a major auteur and she can suddenly turn into Meryl Streep, capable of giving Oscar calibre performances at will. Closer, Black Swan, Jackie etc and now maybe this new one. I don't think I've ever come across an Oscar calibre actress (which she objectively is at times) more director dependent than Portman. I'm talking purely on a personal level here, but I think she's a godawful actress who, on very rare occasions, can be molded by a director to at least fit what the aim of the project is, but I don't think she herself brings anything of worth to a project. Even Jackie, which I think might be her best performance since Cold Mountain (a performance where she doesn't have time to truly suck because Minghella wisely used her for five minutes), is still a hugely affected performance where I can only see tics and mannerisms that feel false and phony, but if we watch the film through the lens that she's putting on that persona to keep it together, it works. But I don't really credit that to Portman as an intentional choice; that feels like a happy accident.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 24, 2023 13:14:36 GMT
Right…yeah that list is something all right. John Wayne at #13? Well..I gotta problem with that pilgrim! John Wayne at #13 ..... Yeah, all these lists are questionable to some extent. Wayne made some good movies with John Ford, but no.... Again though, it's hard to complain about the likes of Keanu Reeves when people put the likes of John Wayne that high up on all time great actor lists, with a straight face. If we're rating movie star personas rather than versatility, Wayne at #13 isn't that bad. I mean, the man had an innate magnetism that could be considered generational, and he molded that into a brand. Guys like McQueen, Newman and Denzel would follow suit, although all three of those guys were more willing to break that mold here and there, which Wayne rarely would. I mean, that also extended into his personal life -- Wayne was so good at fooling people that he was this paragon of patriotism that he made a lot of people forget he was racking up deferments left, right and center while Jimmy Stewart and Clark Gable went off to war. That's a hell of an actor right there.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 24, 2023 13:23:37 GMT
John Wayne at #13 ..... Yeah, all these lists are questionable to some extent. Wayne made some good movies with John Ford, but no.... Again though, it's hard to complain about the likes of Keanu Reeves when people put the likes of John Wayne that high up on all time great actor lists, with a straight face. If we're rating movie star personas rather than versatility, Wayne at #13 isn't that bad. I mean, the man had an innate magnetism that could be considered generational, and he molded that into a brand. Guys like McQueen, Newman and Denzel would follow suit, although all three of those guys were more willing to break that mold here and there, which Wayne rarely would. I mean, that also extended into his personal life -- Wayne was so good at fooling people that he was this paragon of patriotism that he made a lot of people forget he was racking up deferments left, right and center while Jimmy Stewart and Clark Gable went off to war. That's a hell of an actor right there. You could say the same about Keanu or Clooney (as iconic/generational movie star personas) , but you got people losing their marbles over them being on all-time great actor lists. And specifically for Clooney, I could and would make a case of him being infinitely more deserving of all-time great actor status than Wayne (purely on an acting ability level). #13 is way too high for Wayne on any serious list of all-time great actors no matter how you want to slice it. When he's playing anything other than John Wayne (ie Ghengis Khan) he's a terrible actor. If you want to call it a list of all-time great movie stars, then fine. You can rank him that high. Maybe even higher, like on the AFI's Top 50 Greatest Stars List. But make the distinction and be very clear about it.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 24, 2023 13:32:41 GMT
If we're rating movie star personas rather than versatility, Wayne at #13 isn't that bad. I mean, the man had an innate magnetism that could be considered generational, and he molded that into a brand. Guys like McQueen, Newman and Denzel would follow suit, although all three of those guys were more willing to break that mold here and there, which Wayne rarely would. I mean, that also extended into his personal life -- Wayne was so good at fooling people that he was this paragon of patriotism that he made a lot of people forget he was racking up deferments left, right and center while Jimmy Stewart and Clark Gable went off to war. That's a hell of an actor right there. You could say the same about Keanu or Clooney (as iconic/generational movie star personas) , but you got people losing their marbles over them being on all-time great actor lists. #13 is way too high for Wayne on any serious list of all-time great actors no matter how you want to slice it. When he's playing anything other than John Wayne (ie Ghengis Khan) he's a terrible actor. If you want to call it a list of all-time great movie stars, then fine. You can rank him that high. Maybe even higher, like on the AFI's Top 50 Greatest Stars List. But make the distinction and be very clear about it. I mean, it all depends on how one quantifies an actor. Is it versatility? Range? Movie-star wattage? Accolades? I've known people my age (and I am well younger than the average John Wayne fan) who consider John Wayne to be a great actor, even if I personally believe he was very limited outside of what his arena was (but in that arena, you could make the very real argument nobody was better at it). So it comes down to: do you think a great actor needs to be someone who is well-rounded across the board, or if someone is legitimately so good in one pursuit that it makes up for deficiencies elsewhere, should that be merited? For what it's worth, I don't really think Clooney is comparable to Wayne or Reeves -- Clooney is a movie star but he is also a great actor with examples of range and versatility. He's just hit a wall lately, but that doesn't change what came before it.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 24, 2023 13:36:22 GMT
Worst one so far. Portman, Clooney, and Keanu? Pleeeeeeeease Don't forget Anne Hathaway (#16).............. although she probably just barely edged out hacks like Jessica Lange, Glenn Close, Vanessa Redgrave, Isabelle Huppert, Liv Ullman and Gena Rowlands Classic write up too on Hathaway btw which totally justifies her spot - the write-ups on this thing are priceless: Try arguing with her being on this list after reading this! She should be higher, no? Anne Hathaway had her breakthrough role in The Princess Diaries, which later led to a series of family films like Ella Enchanted. Her first adult film role was in Brokeback Mountain, where she earned her way and made it to Rachel Getting Married, which earned her, her first Academy Award nomination. Hathaway finally won a well-deserved Oscar for her performance in Les Misérables, a role for which she cut all of her hair.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 24, 2023 14:06:15 GMT
You could say the same about Keanu or Clooney (as iconic/generational movie star personas) , but you got people losing their marbles over them being on all-time great actor lists. #13 is way too high for Wayne on any serious list of all-time great actors no matter how you want to slice it. When he's playing anything other than John Wayne (ie Ghengis Khan) he's a terrible actor. If you want to call it a list of all-time great movie stars, then fine. You can rank him that high. Maybe even higher, like on the AFI's Top 50 Greatest Stars List. But make the distinction and be very clear about it. I mean, it all depends on how one quantifies an actor. Is it versatility? Range? Movie-star wattage? Accolades? I've known people my age (and I am well younger than the average John Wayne fan) who consider John Wayne to be a great actor, even if I personally believe he was very limited outside of what his arena was (but in that arena, you could make the very real argument nobody was better at it). So it comes down to: do you think a great actor needs to be someone who is well-rounded across the board, or if someone is legitimately so good in one pursuit that it makes up for deficiencies elsewhere, should that be merited? For what it's worth, I don't really think Clooney is comparable to Wayne or Reeves -- Clooney is a movie star but he is also a great actor with examples of range and versatility. He's just hit a wall lately, but that doesn't change what came before it. Wayne is no more a "great actor" than Dwayne Johnson ( and even Dwayne might actually be a better actor than Wayne) . They are both extremely popular and charismatic movies stars who audiences found likable and appealing. I don't think their appeal needs overthinking much beyond that. What helps Wayne more than anything in getting on these lists, is the reverence John Ford is held in. But as an actor, he's always been pretty basic (though I do have a lot of time for his performance in The Searchers). It's wild that someone can be listed the 13th Best Actor Of All Time (even if it's just on a random fansite), and you can make a serious case that he's not even as good an actor as The Rock
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 24, 2023 15:27:56 GMT
John Wayne is number 13 on a (better) list that explicitly tells you Why he's number 13 even - classic films - Red River, The Searchers etc. - was the pet actor of 2 great auteurs - Hawks, Ford, stretched just enough that they like his acting (The Shootist, The Quiet Man) - which is subjective but no more subjective than any other actors. He lacks other metrics (comedy, range of work) and I wouldnt have him as my #13 .....but he makes way more sense on his list than every pick in the Anne Hathwawy / George Clooney thingy ....... Brando couldn't have played those roles for Ford ........and neither could The Rock
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 24, 2023 15:37:14 GMT
I mean, it all depends on how one quantifies an actor. Is it versatility? Range? Movie-star wattage? Accolades? I've known people my age (and I am well younger than the average John Wayne fan) who consider John Wayne to be a great actor, even if I personally believe he was very limited outside of what his arena was (but in that arena, you could make the very real argument nobody was better at it). So it comes down to: do you think a great actor needs to be someone who is well-rounded across the board, or if someone is legitimately so good in one pursuit that it makes up for deficiencies elsewhere, should that be merited? For what it's worth, I don't really think Clooney is comparable to Wayne or Reeves -- Clooney is a movie star but he is also a great actor with examples of range and versatility. He's just hit a wall lately, but that doesn't change what came before it. Wayne is no more a "great actor" than Dwayne Johnson ( and even Dwayne might actually be a better actor than Wayne) . They are both extremely popular and charismatic movies stars who audiences found likable and appealing. I don't think their appeal needs overthinking much beyond that. What helps Wayne more than anything in getting on these lists, is the reverence John Ford is held in. But as an actor, he's always been pretty basic (though I do have a lot of time for his performance in The Searchers). It's wild that someone can be listed the 13th Best Actor Of All Time (even if it's just on a random fansite), and you can make a serious case that he's not even as good an actor as The Rock I mean, no one has an enduring iconography for almost an entire century without some form of talent behind them. John Wayne's charisma was something that papered over a lot of the holes in his skill set, but again, that charisma galvanized moviegoers worldwide and still does. Of course we've seen other performers have their own forms of charisma and channel them into roles that are much more varied than what Wayne did. And yes, the man branching out into yellowface to play Genghis Khan may have been the extent of that variation for Wayne, but within his milieu there are certainly differences between Ethan Edwards and J.B. Books and Sergeant Stryker and Rooster Cogburn; those are roles that take his general brand and are molded by great filmmakers with great material. As a performer, Johnson has the potential to be something like John Wayne but he lacks the filmography. And that's what can't be disputed. John Wayne has a lot of stone-cold classics in his pantheon, more than most actors even today. Part of that is the eras in which he worked, but the reason a lot of those films are classics is due to him. I don't really hold that there is that much of a difference between movie star and actor, because if you're going to be a movie star, there has to be some talent to keep you in that position. We've seen a lot of pretty faces come and go; the real greats stick around because there's more behind the mask. And regardless of what one might think of John Wayne as a person or the sorts of roles he played, the fact remains he was both, and the reason he was a movie star is he had that it factor a lot of great performers lacked.
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,746
Likes: 4,863
|
Post by sirchuck23 on May 24, 2023 15:51:16 GMT
Just seems that the person who runs that Cinema Archives site places alot more emphasis on how many "archivable" films you've been in and which directors you worked with more than an actors' accolades/awards, greatest performances, range of roles, versatility/skills shown, etc. I mean no offense to Ethan Hawke who I like alot as an actor but him over Denzel Washington and Tom Hanks is insane. Since we're on the subject of lists, I always liked this one of the 100 Greatest Modern Actors (No Golden Age actors, so no Brando). I may quibble with some of the rankings in the top 10 but this list takes more into account the individual actor and what he's capable of and not who he was lucky/fortunate enough to get to work with. "Rankings were made taking into account overall ability and range, strength of the roles taken, longevity, influence, and awards won. Listed alongside are each actor’s best works, also loosely ranked according to how each exemplifies their talents. Actors must have appeared in at least one 21st century feature film for consideration as “modern.”definitivedose.com/100-greatest-modern-actors/
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 24, 2023 15:56:47 GMT
Just seems that the person who runs that Cinema Archives site places alot more emphasis on how many "archivable" films you've been in and which directors you worked with more than an actors' accolades/awards, greatest performances, range of roles, versatility/skills shown, etc. I mean no offense to Ethan Hawke who I like alot as an actor but him over Denzel Washington and Tom Hanks is insane. Since we're on the subject of lists, I always liked this one of the 100 Greatest Modern Actors (No Golden Age actors, so no Brando). I may quibble with some of the rankings in the top 10 but this list takes more into account the individual actor and what he's capable of and not who he was lucky/fortunate enough to get to work with. "Rankings were made taking into account overall ability and range, strength of the roles taken, longevity, influence, and awards won. Listed alongside are each actor’s best works, also loosely ranked according to how each exemplifies their talents. Actors must have appeared in at least one 21st century feature film for consideration as “modern.”definitivedose.com/100-greatest-modern-actors/These metrics make a bit more sense because there's something quantifiable that we can look at, rather than purely subjective opinions than "X is better than Y." I do think De Niro needs to be dinged for his last three decades whereas I think Nicholson tops him on overall consistency, if not peaks. But there's little to really quibble with there. It does make me even sadder to see Philip Seymour Hoffman ranked where he is not because he doesn't deserve it, but because if he hadn't died, he might easily have been a top five player.
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,746
Likes: 4,863
|
Post by sirchuck23 on May 24, 2023 16:00:39 GMT
Just seems that the person who runs that Cinema Archives site places alot more emphasis on how many "archivable" films you've been in and which directors you worked with more than an actors' accolades/awards, greatest performances, range of roles, versatility/skills shown, etc. I mean no offense to Ethan Hawke who I like alot as an actor but him over Denzel Washington and Tom Hanks is insane. Since we're on the subject of lists, I always liked this one of the 100 Greatest Modern Actors (No Golden Age actors, so no Brando). I may quibble with some of the rankings in the top 10 but this list takes more into account the individual actor and what he's capable of and not who he was lucky/fortunate enough to get to work with. "Rankings were made taking into account overall ability and range, strength of the roles taken, longevity, influence, and awards won. Listed alongside are each actor’s best works, also loosely ranked according to how each exemplifies their talents. Actors must have appeared in at least one 21st century feature film for consideration as “modern.”definitivedose.com/100-greatest-modern-actors/These metrics make a bit more sense because there's something quantifiable that we can look at, rather than purely subjective opinions than "X is better than Y." I do think De Niro needs to be dinged for his last three decades whereas I think Nicholson tops him on overall consistency, if not peaks. But there's little to really quibble with there. It does make me even sadder to see Philip Seymour Hoffman ranked where he is not because he doesn't deserve it, but because if he hadn't died, he might easily have been a top five player. Also gives credit to an actor like Gary Oldman as well, who doesn't get to work with alot of the great auteurs all the time. Alot of the great actors don't get to work with a Scorsese or a Spielberg. Especially with DiCaprio hogging Scorsese in the 21st century. It happens. Its more about what the individual actor has shown he/she could do with the roles/material they get and the skills they can show.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 24, 2023 16:05:38 GMT
These metrics make a bit more sense because there's something quantifiable that we can look at, rather than purely subjective opinions than "X is better than Y." I do think De Niro needs to be dinged for his last three decades whereas I think Nicholson tops him on overall consistency, if not peaks. But there's little to really quibble with there. It does make me even sadder to see Philip Seymour Hoffman ranked where he is not because he doesn't deserve it, but because if he hadn't died, he might easily have been a top five player. Also gives credit to an actor like Gary Oldman as well, who doesn't get to work with alot of the great auteurs all the time. Alot of the great actors don't get to work with a Scorsese or a Spielberg. Especially with DiCaprio hogging Scorsese in the 21st century. It happens. Its more about what the individual actor has shown he/she could do with the roles/material they get and the skills they can show. This definitely cannot be understated. It's a notch in DiCaprio's belt that he gets these top directors, but that doesn't automatically make him a better actor; it just makes him a more in-demand one. It's easy to correlate the two for sure, but sometimes a filmmaker just attaches themselves to an actor and a lucrative partnership blossoms. (See: Ford/Wayne.) But someone like Oldman, the consummate character actor, doesn't really have that because he chases the parts, not the directors, and he also will take just about any role to continue working due to needing the cash. He can't afford to be as selective as Day-Lewis or DiCaprio, which I would argue has diluted his brand somewhat -- Gary Oldman films just aren't "events" like they should be. It doesn't make him a lesser actor, though, and I certainly think that in terms of influence he might be one of the most influential actors to younger generations alive, and that might make up for some of the dreck he's had to appear in.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 24, 2023 16:34:52 GMT
Wayne is no more a "great actor" than Dwayne Johnson ( and even Dwayne might actually be a better actor than Wayne) . They are both extremely popular and charismatic movies stars who audiences found likable and appealing. I don't think their appeal needs overthinking much beyond that. What helps Wayne more than anything in getting on these lists, is the reverence John Ford is held in. But as an actor, he's always been pretty basic (though I do have a lot of time for his performance in The Searchers). It's wild that someone can be listed the 13th Best Actor Of All Time (even if it's just on a random fansite), and you can make a serious case that he's not even as good an actor as The Rock I mean, no one has an enduring iconography for almost an entire century without some form of talent behind them. John Wayne's charisma was something that papered over a lot of the holes in his skill set, but again, that charisma galvanized moviegoers worldwide and still does. Of course we've seen other performers have their own forms of charisma and channel them into roles that are much more varied than what Wayne did. And yes, the man branching out into yellowface to play Genghis Khan may have been the extent of that variation for Wayne, but within his milieu there are certainly differences between Ethan Edwards and J.B. Books and Sergeant Stryker and Rooster Cogburn; those are roles that take his general brand and are molded by great filmmakers with great material. As a performer, Johnson has the potential to be something like John Wayne but he lacks the filmography. And that's what can't be disputed. John Wayne has a lot of stone-cold classics in his pantheon, more than most actors even today. Part of that is the eras in which he worked, but the reason a lot of those films are classics is due to him. I don't really hold that there is that much of a difference between movie star and actor, because if you're going to be a movie star, there has to be some talent to keep you in that position. We've seen a lot of pretty faces come and go; the real greats stick around because there's more behind the mask. And regardless of what one might think of John Wayne as a person or the sorts of roles he played, the fact remains he was both, and the reason he was a movie star is he had that it factor a lot of great performers lacked. Nah, I surmise that most people (especially serious movie afficianados) recognise the clear difference between great actors and great movie stars and those who happen to be both ( like Hanks, Denzel, DiCaprio etc). Arnold Schwarzeneggar (who is also a much better actor than Wayne) has everything you say Johnson lacks. He has an iconic filmography. Stone cold classics with some of the most revered directors in history (ie James Cameron). Yet if anyone tried to rank Arnie as the 13th greatest actor of all time (actor, not movie star), people would generally find it laughable and question why he's even on the list. Because they recognise that while Arnie was a great, charismatic, entertaining movie star, who made a lot of iconic movies, he's not an all time great thespian. Or anywhere close to being one. Arnie has that "it factor", yet people still recognise it's silly to put him in the upper echelons of the actual craft of acting. Wayne is an anomaly (because people should laugh even harder than they would at Arnie for being ranked that high), because many people, even today, still think the man is no great shakes as an actor. But he has such an enduring following, particularly in America, because his persona and his preferred genre (the Western) is so emblematic of American imperialism and exceptionalism. It's why the likes of George W Bush identified so readily with Wayne. Cowboys kill the injuns.Protect the land, Pilgrim!!! Arnie is a better actor than Wayne, but he's not seen as being symbolic of a country's identity like Wayne is. All I'm saying is that Wayne's appeal has little to do with any acting talent. I recognise that he's got appeal, but for me that's a seperate conversation from acting ability. He shouldn't ever be on these lists based on acting skill or talent, but he is. It is what it is.
|
|