Actors Who Make Other Actors Better

Jack Lemmon should be a poster child of this. He knew when to bring it and when to let his co-star shine... and by the gods, he was great at both. Didn't matter if it was comedy or drama, he knew how to expertly step in and out of the spotlight when necessary.

Denzel is by far the best example of this in the industry today.

So many actors who worked with him have said this about him. From Ethan Hawke to Tom Hanks to Rahda Mitchell to Chiwitel Ejiofor to Austin Butler in interviews long after they worked with him. Pretty much the majority of his co-stars say he made them better.

His approach to the work and just the way he behaves on set forces everyone around him to up their game and stay more in character. But he's also supportive of scene partners, and isn't just trying to blow them off the screen ( which is maybe something the equally imposing Daniel Day-Lewis is more likely to try and do with a scene partner).

Hawke gave a brilliant quote about working with Denzel on Training Day

"Denzel....don't fuck with him, man. You know come to the set with some sloppy work. I loved it. I loved somebody who sets the bar high for crying out loud. I mean everybody is so complacent. It's like they're waiting for Martin Scorsese to show up to give them permission to do great work. Why not do it now?"

Rahda Mitchell, his Man On Fire co-star has said repeatedly he's the actor she learned the most from working with in her career. And she went as far as to say that everyone in the cast had their performances elevated by his focus and concentration.

www.dailymail.co.uk/video/tvshowbiz/video-2297024/Video-Radha-Mitchell-reveals-actor-shes-learned-from.html

In general - imo - the less(er) "Alpha Male" actors like Hanks and Lemmon and to me - especially Clift - are usually more obviously better at it  since they are not trying to blow lesser actors off the screen .........I can't think of a more "sensitive" actor in this way than Clift who is not only that word in his own acting but in the space he grants to others - his co-stars, the director, the writer.......I mean it's almost to a fault with him even 

I'd also think Gene Hackman ( though retired) had a similar effect as Denzel. His no-nonense approach to the work forces everyone around him to raise their game, but he's also a nuanced and generous scene partner and isn't working on the objective to blow all his scene partners off the screen, which he could probably do with 99% of them. 

For as much of a "star" as he is, Tom Cruise, when he's "acting", has always seemed very generous and willing to let someone else steal the scene. We haven't seen that side of him in awhile though...

Another great one, who never got enough credit is Michael Douglas. It's noticible to me that even though he's an extremely powerful and charismatic screen actor, he was also willing to cede room to co-stars like Glenn Close or Sharon Stone or Matt Damon.  

The video of him giving 110% in his performance to Glenn Close's screen test for Fatal Attraction speaks somewhat to that. Douglas has his back to camera, so you can't even see his face most of the time, but you can tell he's giving the best performance he can give, so Close can nail her screen test by having a real performance to react against. He doesn't need to go as hard as he does for someone else's screentest. A lotta actors would do the bare minimum in this situation. 

Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Definitely not Daniel Day-Lewis.

Not really ^.......got a decent # of nods for others - TLJ, Postlethwaite, Fricker (win), Cruz,  Ryder ........I mean you can say he was a ball hog but the interacting with Postlethwaite specifically is fairly all-timerish and that's off of 19 films........I am not saying he was Clift but he's not really an example in reverse based on the work itself..........that TWBB thing of him blowing everyone of the screen clouds the perception of him in this type of question imo

Vicky Kreips actually said she found the circus around Day-Lewis  (where basically everyone on set was treating him as a God because of his "great thespian" reputation) to be silly and annoying. She came prepared and did the work. I think she was as good as she was because Paul Thomas Anderson cast her correctly and she knew what she was doing, in spite of DDL, not neccesarily because of him. DDL gives other actors ( and Krieps) something to react to in his scenes, but that's the bare minimum any good actor should be doing and doesn't really merit special commendation

Liam Neeson also said he found DDL's approach more annoying than helpful on the set of Gangs Of New York ( brief performance by Neeson, but he was terrific). 

I don't think DDL got Oscar nominations for other actors just by being him. That's a function of a lot of things. Good casting, the ability and commitment of the actor themselves, directing, the script and the role itself. You can be a selfish lead actor who isn't really supporting your co-stars and other well prepared actors around you can still get Oscar nominations or wins. I've always found that belief a bit silly. You need to hear what other actors say about the experience working with someone and what their own preparations were, as opposed to just looking at the end result and presume they got an Oscar nod or win because the lead actor was generous enough to allow them to have it.