|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 11, 2018 16:57:55 GMT
Well, I agree with the 2nd paragraph of that but Sean Penn (who I do rank as the American film actor of his generation but that's not important here) was a long time ago and the film landscape looks a lot uglier now.
The world has fractured in its audience, movies matter less, movie stars matter less. What's actually going to separate DiCaprio from Phoenix is his critical acclaim - 5 Oscar nods and his important films for important filmmakers, etc. Now I would rank Phoenix as a better actor, or more my thing at least, but audiences are not as bound to that as much now and I think Phoenix, in his mind may want to be the best number 2 he can be, because in his mind, that's him winning.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 11, 2018 18:05:14 GMT
I know Penn will always be your boy, but I think you also know how much of a minority position it is to consider him "best of his generation" now ( film, American or otherwise). Critics who once championed him thought if they repeated the phrase "best actor of his generation" often enough, people would fall into line, and it simply did not work. One guy has lapped him by miles (Washington), and is the American public's clear choice (and now the industry's). And I'd say Hanks will go down as the no.2 in their generation of Americans (interesting how similar their oscar records are).
To go down as your generations greatest with any sort of conviction, it requires a combination of things. Public support, critical acknowledgement, peer reverence. If you are missing one or more of those things (like Penn, and currently Phoenix)....well, you'll always have some fans, but don't get too carried away.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 11, 2018 18:23:32 GMT
I guess what I am saying is there's a distinction between what you call the "greatest" and I call the "best" and I was describing Phoenix as best - though I haven't seen his recent acclaimed work. Personally I don't ever see how Phoenix could ever be "greatest" in that overall movie star sense - he's far too much an acquired taste, but I very definitely see a path to him as "best" (most talented) in the same way I thought PSH was best and Penn was best to me in generations prior.
In today's more cultish world in the Arts, in music, literature, film, television etc. I think that distinction is easier to make than it was ever before.
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on Jul 11, 2018 21:05:31 GMT
I'm pretty excited about this. I think Phoenix should be able to bring some of his creativity to the role. Picturing a Freddie Quell/Frank Boothe type portrayal.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 11, 2018 22:40:02 GMT
You see what happens when you leave a thread with pacinoyes and scrudpup unattended for a few hours, Stephen? Do you see? I didn't say Phoenix's reverence was DDL-level, because it isn't. But in the wake of Day-Lewis's retirement, he's the closest thing to an actor capturing that mystique that Day-Lewis had made his trademark. DiCaprio and Bale don't have that, because like it or not, their public personas have transformed them from actors to movie stars. It's a different type of label, one that Day-Lewis never really had. He isn't a movie star. He's an actor, with all the serious importance such a label connotes. Day-Lewis's image of extreme selectivity, public reticence and heavy role preparation make him such a unique figure, so that even if you don't necessarily think of him as the greatest actor of all time, it's hard to dispute that he has the respect, the clout, and the rep, and that he earned it all. There aren't a whole lot of actors who could do what Day-Lewis did, because for many actors, that level of selectivity hurts their careers. It is, after all, a profession and a guy/gal has to eat. But a lot of actors would likely love to have the opportunity to pick and choose and not fall into the franchise trap. DiCaprio is one of the few actors who seems keen to follow DDL's example, albeit not to such an extreme degree. It helps that he commands a massive salary, but he also can afford to take a couple years off here and there. It's been three years since The Revenant and it will be at least another year before his next film drops; DiCaprio might very well be following DDL's lead and only coming out of his self-imposed sabbaticals when a quality project comes along. But the way they treat acting is different; DiCaprio still seems eager to learn and hone his craft, whereas Day-Lewis treated it almost as a chore, something he had to flush from his system to get back to whatever joys he pursues in life. Phoenix feels much in the same vein, and on top of that, he eschews the system in a way that even DDL didn't do. Phoenix is a rebel who plays by his own (bizarre) rules, and while that will never appeal to the industry masses who like it when their collective asses are kissed, individuals will certainly sing his praises. It's hard to say whether or not Phoenix will get his due in his lifetime, both from the Academy (unlikely; it boggles my mind that he could've lost in 2012 to any of the others if DDL hadn't been in the running) and the public as one of the undisputed greats of his time. Phoenix is still kinda viewed with wariness; the stunt he pulled several years ago still hangs over him, and while I think it will ultimately be seen as nothing more than an Andy Kaufman-esque gag that didn't quite land, he has mentioned that it still gets him sidelong glances with producers and directors. I think a lot of people are wondering if and when the other shoe will drop and he'll go off the reservation again, and it doesn't help that even when Phoenix turns in a great performance, he doesn't seem willing to play the campaign game.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jul 12, 2018 23:55:13 GMT
Am I in an alternate universe where Bale is this big Box Office star? He is no more a draw or a star than Phoenix is. At best, he is better known, because he happened to be in the highly successful Batman trilogy. Almost all of his movies where he was the lead have either bombed or managed a profit only because he's had bigger draws in the supporting cast. Hostiles bombed. The Promise bombed. The Big Short had Pitt, Carell, and Gosling. Knight of Cups bombed. Exodus bombed. American Hustle had Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence. Out of the Furnace bombed. I could go on, but you get the picture.
That said, you don't need to be a box office draw to be considered the best actor of your generation. Exposure helps, but posterity doesn't care about how much money your movies have made when it's judging you as an actor. Phoenix doesn't need big movies that people watch to bolster his acting legacy. If he does need big movies that make money, it's so he gets better opportunities, but I don't think he's really lacking in that respect.
As far as this project is concerned, this is the one comic book character that I think is worthy of Phoenix, but not with this director. I don't know what Phoenix sees in this particular project, but I don't think it's $$$. He's not that kind of an actor.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 14, 2018 5:24:43 GMT
I've never considered Bale a major box office draw. But by playing Batman in a trilogy for the most acclaimed and highest grossing version of the character's series, Bale has attained a level of cultural cache that allows the industry to see him semi-permanently as a "movie star", even if it's smoke and mirrors. For Bale, Batman is the gift that keeps on giving . He's absolutely no Dicaprio as a draw (or anything close), but the industry considers him a great actor who was in the most popular Batman films. Therefore, he's a household name and they can cast him in big prestige projects repeatedly. Bale is actually a bit like DDL in one sense. DDL is not really a major box office draw, but auteurs who work on bigger budgets go out of their way to get them. I suppose Bale and Phoenix will be the ones battling it out to claim whom can be considered most similar to DDL. They both have cases. If Phoenix's Joker is well recieved and a big hit, he may gain a similar cultural cache to Bale, even if like Bale he never becomes a major box office draw outside of that role. But right now, I 'd say Bale is regarded as a significantly bigger star than Phoenix, because he has the cache of the Nolan trilogy behind him.
If box-office/level of stardom/cultural cache wasn't a factor in being regarded the greatest actor of your generation in posterity, the likes of Fredric March and George C Scott (celebrated as acting titans in their day) would be still talked up today on equal terms with the likes of Brando. They aren't (and if they are , it's only by a tiny minority of film nerds and historians). If it didn't matter, Albert Finney might be as big a deal as Olivier was. It doesn't matter so much in the short term, because film critics and the media can write endless articles about how great you are, if you are a pet actor that they love. But in posterity, if your weren't someone audiences particularly cared about, reputations can fade away pretty fast. Audiences play a huge part in keeping reputations alive and celebrated, so there is a tangenital relationship to box office/stardom and enduring legacies. Obviously, it's not just about box office, but it cannot be dismissed as a factor.
For example, Robert Mitchum today is a far more celebrated actor than contemporaries like Fredric March (a two time Best Actor winner who was regarded as one of the world's greatest actors in his time. But quite obscure today). Mitchum's enduring popularity and continued celebration is down to him being a consistent box office force. He made movies audiences liked, even though he was never fully given his due in terms of accolades.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 14, 2018 10:14:21 GMT
If box-office/level of stardom/cultural cache wasn't a factor in being regarded the greatest actor of your generation in posterity, the likes of Fredric March and George C Scott (celebrated as acting titans in their day) would be still talked up today on equal terms with the likes of Brando. They aren't (and if they are , it's only by a tiny minority of film nerds and historians).
But there's also something to be said for actually BEING the best though but also distinctly looking at the time you're in too.
Phoenix and Bale are not playing in the DDL class because DDL was British and older and no American actor ever competed with him either - that's important to remember - maybe if he had done say Interview With a Vampire but then he wouldn't have been DDL would he? (That's not a compliment). Gary Oldman will never be Tom Hanks either because well he's British too but Oldman is the key transitional figure for where we are now not DDL.
Bale is the one who f*cks it all up because there's nothing distinctly British about him - Bale therefore is like DiCaprio because he can be cast in anything, lead or support, contemporary or period, ensemble or not - that's not range quite as much as "cast-ability". When has a British actor had that level a playing field with his American rival? You can start your movie, ANY movie with one of those two guys and you've solved a casting problem - not a box office problem in Bale's case but a filmmaking problem at least.
Box office can't be dismissed but it can be far, far more dismissed than ever before - that Scott/Brando thing is true in a historical context but less true in understanding the recent past and the here and now.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 14, 2018 11:37:13 GMT
If box-office/level of stardom/cultural cache wasn't a factor in being regarded the greatest actor of your generation in posterity, the likes of Fredric March and George C Scott (celebrated as acting titans in their day) would be still talked up today on equal terms with the likes of Brando. They aren't (and if they are , it's only by a tiny minority of film nerds and historians).
But there's also something to be said for actually BEING the best though but also distinctly looking at the time you're in too. Phoenix and Bale are not playing in the DDL class because DDL was British and older and no American actor ever competed with him either - that's important to remember - maybe if he had done say Interview With a Vampire but then he wouldn't have been DDL would he? (That's not a compliment). Gary Oldman will never be Tom Hanks either because well he's British too but Oldman is the key transitional figure for where we are now not DDL. Bale is the one who f*cks it all up because there's nothing distinctly British about him - Bale therefore is like DiCaprio because he can be cast in anything, lead or support, contemporary or period, ensemble or not - that's not range quite as much as "cast-ability". When has a British actor had that level a playing field with his American rival? You can start your movie, ANY movie with one of those two guys and you've solved a casting problem - not a box office problem in Bale's case but a filmmaking problem at least. Box office can't be dismissed but it can be far, far more dismissed than ever before - that Scott/Brando thing is true in a historical context but less true in understanding the recent past and the here and now. You make some interesting points here. Unlike previous generations and the more current ones, the most acclaimed actors 80's generation, for a variety of different reasons never really competed directly with each other for parts (aside from DDL and Oldman for a few years in the UK, before both made it to Hollywood). I'm talking Hanks, Penn, Washington, DDL and Oldman. Denzel Washington got several key prestige roles that could only be played by a black actor (so he was also competing with the Fishburnes, Sam Jackson's and Wesley Snipes of the world). And when Washington did get "colorblind" roles, the pool of white actors in contention tended to vary widely from film to film. For example Jonathan Demme wanted Robin Williams for Washington's role in Philidelphia at one time. And Val Kilmer and Brad Pitt were contenders for his role in Crimson Tide (he also turned down Pitt's Seven role). From the 90's onwards, Penn did not have enough studio/box office clout to be in contention for the same colorblind leading roles that Washington was frequently up for. Penn tended to work within a smaller budget range and more in the indie circuit, and I'd say that's one of the main reasons they never competed directly. Hanks tended to make a lot of big studio projects where the lead more or less had to be a white guy (Forrest Gump, Apollo 13, Saving Private Ryan, Road To Perdition and his latest string of biopics). But Hanks was working on budget levels too big for Penn or DDL to be considered for in his peak years, so he never had to worry about them beating him out for a role. He had sideline in romantic comedies, but he was the only one of the 80's generation that really did that. Yeah, DDL was considered for his role in Philidelphia and Washington may have been considered for something like Castaway, but for the most part, Hanks found his own niche. As did DDL with his Irish and American biopics and historical dramas. And Oldman basicaly became a character/supporting actor in Hollywood. If anything, once he became a Hollywood level leading man, DDL's biggest rivals for casting were not Oldman, or any of the most acclaimed Americans (Hanks, Washington, Penn), but Ralph Fiennes and Liam Neeson. A lot of their roles fell into DDL's niche. The prestige Euro leading man in mid budget historical picture. DDL could just as easily have been in Rob Roy, Michael Collins, Quiz Show, The English Patient and Oscar And Lucinda. It showed how fractured the industry had become that your biggest rivals for actual roles, are not neccesarily your biggest generational rivals for esteem and prestige. The rivalries of the 70's generation felt much more intense, because several of the main generational players occupied the exact same space. Pacino and Hoffman for a period. Then Pacino and DeNiro. You could even say Hackman and Duvall. Wheras the 80's generation all found seperate niches.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jul 14, 2018 13:24:06 GMT
I've never considered Bale a major box office draw. But by playing Batman in a trilogy for the most acclaimed and highest grossing version of the character's series, Bale has attained a level of cultural cache that allows the industry to see him semi-permanently as a "movie star", even if it's smoke and mirrors. For Bale, Batman is the gift that keeps on giving . He's absolutely no Dicaprio as a draw (or anything close), but the industry considers him a great actor who was in the most popular Batman films. Therefore, he's a household name and they can cast him in big prestige projects repeatedly. Bale is actually a bit like DDL in one sense. DDL is not really a major box office draw, but auteurs who work on bigger budgets go out of their way to get them. I suppose Bale and Phoenix will be the ones battling it out to claim whom can be considered most similar to DDL. They both have cases. If Phoenix's Joker is well recieved and a big hit, he may gain a similar cultural cache to Bale, even if like Bale he never becomes a major box office draw outside of that role. But right now, I 'd say Bale is regarded as a significantly bigger star than Phoenix, because he has the cache of the Nolan trilogy behind him. Yeah, let's say that's true, that Bale is considered the bigger star. What has that gotten him, except for a bigger paycheck? He's certainly not getting better opportunities than Phoenix. Phoenix has worked with the likes of PTA, Allen, and GVS in recent years. Bale has worked with DOR, McKay, and Malick. They are playing in the same league. I don't think a fatter paycheck is going to make Bale seem like a better actor for future generations. Have you stopped to consider that it isn't Box Office that made Brando stand out over all his peers? Paul Newman was the biggest star of their generation, but it wasn't he who stood out. If there are factors outside of Brando's acting that made him the standout actor, it was the films he was in. The Godfather and On the Waterfront are bigger deals than The Best Years of Our Lives and Death of a Salesman. The movies Brando was in stood out, which has made more people seek them out, and has given Brando a lot more exposure to posterity. That Sayonara did well at the Box Office in 1957 is completely irrelevant in the here and now, when most people who watched it at the time are now dead. Mitchum wasn't a big Box Office force. He was about the same level of a Box Office force as March was. His placement on the AFI list is misleading. If this Mitchum and March example tells you anything, it's not that Box Office is important. It's that theater is not.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 14, 2018 13:44:30 GMT
If this Mitchum and March example tells you anything, it's not that Box Office is important. It's that theater is not.
Theater is not necessarily important in having a successful film career that's true - but it's like the most important thing to making yourself a better actor in film.
Phoenix may be the best actor of his era anyway without doing it, certainly the others in his era don't do theater either so he doesn't have to sweat it that much it looks like........but they all suffer for not doing it.
He'll never reach his full potential as an actor on film without doing theater. No one will.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 14, 2018 13:54:41 GMT
Mitchum was a significant draw for decades longer than March. Mitchum was carrying films as an old man in the 1970's (The Yakuza, The Friends Of Eddie Coyle). Mitchum was never the biggest draw, but very few had comparable longevity as a draw. It's not neccesarily about being the biggest draw. Denzel Washington has never had the peak level draw of Kevin costner or Mel Gibson, but his box office longevity nd consistency outpaces them by a lot. March was maybe a draw, but for nowhere a long as Mitchum.
Theatre is very important. Mitchum may be better remembered than March because Mitchum was a great "movie star" and March wasn't, but Mitchum still isn't regarded as the best actor of his generation....he might be if he also had stage in his arsenal. But as much as his rep as a film actor has improved, Mitchum is still not held in the same regard as Olivier or Brando...film AND stage legends.
Again, it's not about being the biggest draw, but having a significant audience connection and cultural cache. Brando was a big enough box office force in his time and had enough cultural cache and audience connection. March and George C Scott, for all their critical worship, did not.
And Newman, who did not have the same level of critical respect as March or Scott in their primes, now has a much more significant legacy than either today. Again, because unlike them, Newman was a great movie star with enduring cultural and audience cache.
Everyone acknowledges multiple factors are at play, but if you were never a significant or enduring box office draw in your time, odds of audiences still caring about how much critics liked you in your heyday decrease exponentially.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 14, 2018 14:01:20 GMT
If this Mitchum and March example tells you anything, it's not that Box Office is important. It's that theater is not.
Theater is not necessarily important in having a successful film career that's true - but it's like the most important thing to making yourself a better actor in film. Phoenix may be the best actor of his era anyway without doing it, certainly the others in his era don't do theater either so he doesn't have to sweat it that much it looks like........but they all suffer for not doing it. He'll never reach his full potential as an actor on film without doing theater. No one will. I don't know about all of this. You and scrudpup place importance on theater, and it is indeed an essential tool for honing an actor's craft . . . but it is also a different medium entirely from the screen, which uses a different arsenal of skills and talents. An actor who might crush it on the stage might not translate well to film/television at all, and vice versa. What the theater does, and does well, is put an actor out of the comfort zone of knowing that his performance can be shaped by the editor/director after the fact, or that he can do a dozen bum takes before nailing it on the thirteenth shot. I think that every actor should do theater if only to see whether or not they have the stones to make it out there without a net, but Daniel Day-Lewis did theater and decided it wasn't for him, and if guys like DiCaprio or Phoenix think that treading the boards isn't something they want to do, that's perfectly fine and it doesn't take away from their skills as actors in film. Because here's the thing: stage performances rarely see mainstream viewing, which is why performers who made their bones on the stage back in the day like Fredric March are rarely discussed with the awed respect they received in their heyday. Brando, while indeed starting out in the stage, more or less was born on screen; that, I feel, is why he is iconic in the way that he is. He wasn't a stuffy old Shakespearean or a distinguished elder statesman, but rather a fiery young kid who oozed masculinity and screen presence in a way no one had before or since. Men who never once considered acting a "manly" profession saw Brando and reshaped their lines of thinking; he made acting look badass, while also showing vulnerability in a way no one had really thought to do. Brando's iconic status was borne out of being at the right place at the right time with the right message.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jul 14, 2018 14:17:48 GMT
If this Mitchum and March example tells you anything, it's not that Box Office is important. It's that theater is not.
Theater is not necessarily important in having a successful film career that's true - but it's like the most important thing to making yourself a better actor in film. Phoenix may be the best actor of his era anyway without doing it, certainly the others in his era don't do theater either so he doesn't have to sweat it that much it looks like........but they all suffer for not doing it. He'll never reach his full potential as an actor on film without doing theater. No one will. I don't think that's an unreasonable claim, and I won't argue against it because it's not exactly a falsifiable claim, but I'll just add that just because you're not the best actor you can be doesn't mean you can't be the best actor, period. I don't disagree, but we're splitting hairs here. If Mitchum was a bigger draw overall, it wasn't by very much. There are more significant factors that separate Mitchum and March than their respective Box Office clouts. It feels like you're backtracking now. Is Mitchum considered a better actor than March or not? Or are you just saying being a bigger movie star is more important than having stage work? You're contradicting yourself now. Here is what you said earlier: "Mitchum's enduring popularity and continued celebration is down to him being a consistent box office force." As a movie star and overall, yes. But is Newman considered a better actor than March or Scott? That is a lot closer than you're letting on, I think. I'll just add that I agree about having a "cultural cache" being important. But that's not the same thing as being a being a Box Office star. The contrast between the legacies of Burt Reynolds and Marilyn Monroe is a good example for that.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 14, 2018 14:30:11 GMT
Do enough people today even know who March is, for them to know or care whether he can be considered a better actor than Newman? That's the real question. I'd argue that March today is irrelevant enough that most of the world regards Newman as the greater actor today.
We are arguing mostly semantic details though.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jul 14, 2018 14:34:20 GMT
Do enough people today even know who March is, for them to know or care whether he can be considered a better actor than Newman? That's the real question We are arguing mostly semantic details though. The answer to your question is probably, "No." And that's kind of the point I'm making, and perhaps what you're trying to get at as well. It isn't Box Office. It's exposure, or "cultural cache", as you like to call it. Burt Reynolds is arguably among the 10 biggest draws of all time, at least from a domestic standpoint. But I doubt he has the "cultural cache" of even a Charles Bronson.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 14, 2018 14:36:32 GMT
If this Mitchum and March example tells you anything, it's not that Box Office is important. It's that theater is not.
Theater is not necessarily important in having a successful film career that's true - but it's like the most important thing to making yourself a better actor in film. Phoenix may be the best actor of his era anyway without doing it, certainly the others in his era don't do theater either so he doesn't have to sweat it that much it looks like........but they all suffer for not doing it. He'll never reach his full potential as an actor on film without doing theater. No one will. I don't know about all of this. You and scrudpup place importance on theater, and it is indeed an essential tool for honing an actor's craft . . . but it is also a different medium entirely from the screen, which uses a different arsenal of skills and talents. An actor who might crush it on the stage might not translate well to film/television at all, and vice versa. What the theater does, and does well, is put an actor out of the comfort zone of knowing that his performance can be shaped by the editor/director after the fact, or that he can do a dozen bum takes before nailing it on the thirteenth shot. I think that every actor should do theater if only to see whether or not they have the stones to make it out there without a net, but Daniel Day-Lewis did theater and decided it wasn't for him, and if guys like DiCaprio or Phoenix think that treading the boards isn't something they want to do, that's perfectly fine and it doesn't take away from their skills as actors in film. Because here's the thing: stage performances rarely see mainstream viewing, which is why performers who made their bones on the stage back in the day like Fredric March are rarely discussed with the awed respect they received in their heyday. Brando, while indeed starting out in the stage, more or less was born on screen; that, I feel, is why he is iconic in the way that he is. He wasn't a stuffy old Shakespearean or a distinguished elder statesman, but rather a fiery young kid who oozed masculinity and screen presence in a way no one had before or since. Men who never once considered acting a "manly" profession saw Brando and reshaped their lines of thinking; he made acting look badass, while also showing vulnerability in a way no one had really thought to do. Brando's iconic status was borne out of being at the right place at the right time with the right message. I don't know about all of that actually - that sounds like questioning it on one hand but then arguing for it too? My take is this: It clearly hurt Day-Lewis by what he didn't do and didn't try in film at a certain point. I would say you let him off the hook too easily actually but that's a different topic I guess and we've talked about him before too. But he did do stage before he quit and he not coincidentally quit on a lot more too eventually - quitting was rather what he liked - quit on romantic comedy, screwball comedy, Shakespeare on film, action/adventure, horror, war films, cop dramas, science fiction, legal dramas - I mean he decided a lot of things weren't for him, including the occupation in general. I'm teasing but that's part of the point - Actors don't grow by saying "Nah".............or by saying "I don't wanna"...........I think he's an all time great but it's a real stretch to say he's as great by stopping theater. But that's not the same as letting DiCaprio and Phoenix and Bale off the hook and I like them all but: You have no way of knowing what failures or mistakes or poor choices or risks on stage would have on DiCaprio or Phoenix and their acting, rather you're really just saying "Phoenix was awesome in ___________" and it's ok that he doesn't do theater because he was awesome in _____________. It is rather both those things - he can be awesome in _______________and have it still very much take away from his general skills on film because he'll never know what his skills are by not doing stage. It is not a completely unique skill set - the key is in the overlap and where the actor and skill set intersect. You do not grow unless you try (and in some cases fail, or better yet spectacularly fail), you do not grow by trying only in the same exact way, in the exact same medium.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 14, 2018 14:44:27 GMT
Yeah, I get what you are saying. But we are kind of going in circles with this, so let's just leave it where it stands.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jul 14, 2018 14:45:41 GMT
Anyway, back on topic, I don't think Bale has any "cultural cache" that Phoenix doesn't. Yes, he's Batman in the amazingly successful Dark Knight trilogy, but Ledger stole all the "cultural cache" on that one. Do more people know Bale and his work, and would more people therefore consider him a good/great actor than they do Phoenix? Perhaps. But is Bale's popularity going to prove more enduring than Phoenix's? That remains to be seen, and I don't see any strong reason for that to be the case. It's like arguing whether clay has a brighter sheen than mud, in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 14, 2018 14:46:33 GMT
I don't know about all of that actually - that sounds like questioning it on one hand but then arguing for it too? My take is this: It clearly hurt Day-Lewis by what he didn't do and didn't try in film at a certain point. I would say you let him off the hook too easily actually but that's a different topic I guess and we've talked about him before too. But he did do stage before he quit and he not coincidentally quit on a lot more too eventually - quitting was rather what he liked - quit on romantic comedy, screwball comedy, Shakespeare on film, action/adventure, horror, war films, cop dramas, science fiction, legal dramas - I mean he decided a lot of things weren't for him, including the occupation in general. I'm teasing but that's part of the point - Actors don't grow by saying "Nah".............or by saying "I don't wanna"...........I think he's an all time great but it's a real stretch to say he's as great by stopping theater. But that's not the same as letting DiCaprio and Phoenix and Bale off the hook and I like them all but: You have no way of knowing what failures or mistakes or poor choices or risks on stage would have on DiCaprio or Phoenix and their acting, rather you're really just saying "Phoenix was awesome in ___________" and it's ok that he doesn't do theater because he was awesome in _____________. It is rather both those things - he can be awesome in _______________and have it still very much take away from his general skills on film because he'll never know what his skills are by not doing stage. It is not a completely unique skill set - the key is in the overlap and where the actor and skill set intersect. You do not grow unless you try (and in some cases fail, or better yet spectacularly fail), you do not grow by trying only in the same exact way, in the exact same medium. I think having a strong stage background is a good thing to have, but it doesn't make one a better actor, just a more well-rounded one. If that's your definition of "better," then sure. But the problem is that the masses rarely get to see stage performances, as so few are recorded for posterity and then made available. That's why stage masters like March and Scofield and Robards are more obscure today, because they didn't do most of their acclaimed work in a medium that is designed to last. Compare that with someone like DiCaprio, who doesn't do stage work but who has an assortment of films that will last, and it's easy to see why he is and will remain much more of a cultural fixture.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 14, 2018 14:53:31 GMT
Anyway, back on topic, I don't think Bale has any "cultural cache" that Phoenix doesn't. Yes, he's Batman in the amazingly successful Dark Knight trilogy, but Ledger stole all the "cultural cache" on that one. Do more people know Bale and his work, and would more people therefore consider him a good/great actor than they do Phoenix? Perhaps. But is Bale's popularity going to prove more enduring than Phoenix's? That remains to be seen, and I don't see any strong reason for that to be the case. It's like arguing whether clay has a brighter sheen than mud, in the grand scheme of things. I've said before that Christian Bale is the kind of actor who appeals to the "entry-level cinephile," who hears about how much weight he lost/gained and thinks that alone is the mark of a great actor. He's not an untalented actor at all (although I think he has absolutely no charisma, which he does his best to hide by unhealthily warping his body), but for all the shit Jared Leto cops these days, I've thought Bale equally as guilty, if not more so, of posturing. Does Bale have cultural cache? Sure. He headlined one of the biggest franchises in modern cinema, and American Psycho is glorified in certain circles in the way Fight Club is. But Joaquin Phoenix has Gladiator, he has Walk the Line, he even has I'm Still Here (like it or not, people remember that and whether or not it's a positive thing, it's still extremely memorable for what it did for his rep; people are still parodying it today), and then he has his golden streak, in which The Master at least will be regarded as one of the most important films of the decade, in no small part due to his performance. The one thing Bale has over him is a more recognizable mainstream franchise, but as you said, Ledger is the first thing people think of when The Dark Knight is brought up and his absence overshadowed the third film so thoroughly that it's still headline news when, several years later, it comes up that the Joker was considered to be the villain in that before Ledger's untimely death.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 14, 2018 14:58:15 GMT
I'd agree with that in the March/Scofield/Robards - DiCaprio example, that's true but also add that it leads to a false shorthand such as "Oh __________ is better on stage actor than _________ but for film I prefer ________" that often loses the whole conversation about acting and just gives people an easy out (ie criticizing theater without having to actually see it or think about it, or at the very least minimizing it relative to film acting - it's like reverse snobbery in a weird way)
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 14, 2018 15:02:16 GMT
I think it takes a lot more ability to be a great stage actor than a great film actor, which is not to dismiss the joy that great or memorable film acting can bring to millions of people. Ultimately film is the medium most of us watch, so we tend to hold more appreciation towards those performers, but actors themselves know the degree of difficulty can be much higher.
Ethan Hawke gave a good interview with the AV Club a few years ago pointing out how hard it was for film actors to suck. Because so many things can save a performance. Editing, lighting, piecing together different cuts. Hawke has done stage and film and admits stage is much much harder and bad stage performances are far easier to spot.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 14, 2018 15:05:34 GMT
One of the things comparing Bale and Phoenix is they both have overcome things that shaped them - Phoenix and the death of his brother and not as significant but Bale's lean post Empire of the Sun film years.
I think both of those guys were sort of shaped by that - Bale's "posturing" is a reaction to that almost being JUST a child star stuck in B movie hell and Phoenix's rebellious nature is a sort of defense against what can happen to you in the movie industry.
In some ways, Bale always has to build bricks in his career - he always has to try and try but it's paid off in the career and has had the totality add up. Phoenix may choose to do that but doesn't have to, you feel he could pull something great out at any time, at the drop of a hat. The whole source of his appeal is mystery and you can't quite read him.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 14, 2018 15:05:43 GMT
I think it takes a lot more ability to be a great stage actor than a great film actor. Ultimately film is the medium most of us watch, so we tend to hold more appreciation towards those performers, but actors themselves know the degree of difficulty can be much higher. Ethan Hawke gave a good interview with the AV Club a few years ago pointing out how hard it was for film actors to suck. Because so many things can save a performance. Editing, lighting, piecing together different cuts. Hawke has done stage and film and admits stage is much much harder and bad stage performances are far easier to spot. I don't think anyone who argue against that at all. There's a reason a lot of film actors don't do stage: because it puts you out there, naked on the boards with no safety net, having only one shot to stick the landing on a given night. No takes, no reshoots. That's why I find it very admirable when someone who has no stage pedigree decides to go for it. Does it make them better than the guy who never goes out there but has an incredible filmography? Not necessarily, but it shows an adventurous side that could reap great rewards, and I find that to be very engaging. I would love it if DiCaprio or Phoenix decided to do theater, because that would show ambition and not a desire to rest on their laurels.
|
|