|
Post by stephen on Jul 14, 2018 15:10:21 GMT
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. Which is why I've called him Daniel Day-Lewis's heir apparent in that regard. DDL himself is something of a cipher: rarely giving interviews, scarcely talking about his process, hardly doing much to promote his own personal image. It's about the work with him, and he doesn't seem like he has a whole lot to say about it when he's done with the role, purging it from his system after months of shooting. He's a master of skirting around those prodding questions, deflecting attention away from himself and towards the overall project. Phoenix does the same thing, albeit in a cruder sense; where Day-Lewis's shyness lends itself to an aura of gentle humility, Phoenix's bluntness comes off as rebellious in an "I don't know, and I don't care" kind of way. If we're talking career management/selectivity, it appears that DiCaprio is Day-Lewis's heir. But if we're talking about image/quality, I point to Joaquin.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 14, 2018 15:31:29 GMT
Because of his somewhat extreme dedication to the physicality of his roles (ie the extreme weight cuts and gains), I'd argue to many people, Bale is seen as the most DDL-esque actor of that following generation. People percieve Bale as someone who will go to extreme lengths for a role, and apart from his selectivity and reclusiveness, that was DDL's main selling point as an actor.
If I had to call Dicaprio someone's heir from the generation above him (at least as a film actor), it'd be Denzel Washington. They both straddle that line between " massive movie star" and "prestige actor". Neither are regarded as chameleons (though Dicaprio does occassionally love a good wig and accent), but have a surplus of on-camera technique and a charisma none of their peers can really match. There are a few differences. Both handle their careers strategcally, but in different ways. Washington moonlights as an action star, but never lets his thespian cred slip. Dicaprio works with more major directors, because more major directors have lead roles/scripts for white leading men, but that's happenstance. And Washington does theatre. But that aside, I think Dicaprio and Washington share far more commonalities, than Dicaprio and DDL.
Phoenix feels more like a less obnoxious and much more consistent version of Sean Penn. Phoenix is closer to what critics wanted Penn to actually be.They even sort of have the same taste in indies. I actually suspect the rise of Phoenix has been damaging to Penn's career, because Penn used to be the go-to-guy for a lot of these damaged, intense, introspective characters in indie films of a certain budget....then Phoenix (who is much younger than Penn, but looks much older than he is, so he can essentially be cast in roles Penn can still play) starts hogging all these roles. And Penn is struggling in his niche now.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 14, 2018 16:05:18 GMT
Because of his somewhat extreme dedication to the physicality of his roles (ie the extreme weight cuts and gains), I'd argue to many people, Bale is seen as the most DDL-esque actor of that following generation. People percieve Bale as someone who will go to extreme lengths for a role, and apart from his selectivity and reclusiveness, that was DDL's main selling point as an actor. Perhaps to the layman, yes, but I see that as more comparable to what De Niro did in his prime. Reshaping his body was De Niro's main weapon in his arsenal, as he used his physique to inform his early work. Day-Lewis had his moments of weight gain/loss ( In the Name of the Father, The Boxer), but his method of preparation is deeper and less physical than what Bale does. I think that a Bale/DDL comparison looks good on the surface, but not so much if one digs deeper and actually looks at what they do. But as I said, Bale's position as the actor that entry-level cinephiles would admire for his "dedication" is what would garner him the comparison to Day-Lewis, whose reputation precedes him and whose name has become shorthand for "extreme method," even though what he actually does isn't technically the Method. But I'd say Bale's point of influence isn't Day-Lewis, but rather De Niro. If we're comparing box-office consistency, yeah, DiCaprio and Washington share a lot of similarities. Daniel Day-Lewis couldn't boast that; only one of his films broke the $100 million mark, and that was a Spielberg joint. (But then, the sort of movies DDL did weren't exactly what would constitute box-office bonanzas.) There isn't truly a one-to-one comparison, because I said above, Day-Lewis's heirs (in the broadest sense) are split in different camps. For career management/selectivity, it's Leo. For image/dedication/mystery, it's Phoenix. Hell, I'd argue that in the wake of his retirement, Mark Rylance might wind up being the guy who takes on roles Day-Lewis would've done. He's already considered the world's greatest stage actor, he's won an Oscar, he's certainly got the range/versatility, and he's got a slew of promising projects on the horizon. He may be a Johnny-come-lately as far as films go, but he can make a late-career run at the title if he wants. I think there's something to be said for wanting to have the image of a rebel who doesn't play by the rules, does his or her own thing, and can come in and kick ass when required. Penn certainly wanted that, and there were times when it worked (though I've said elsewhere that Penn's strong suit was in quiet, introspective roles; give him an intense character and all I can see are the cogs cranking). I think that critics hunger for that, have done so ever since the days of Brando. I'd argue Brando's attitude towards acting in the 1960s, then his comeback in the '70s, did more for his image than his stellar streak in the '50s. Brando encapsulated the rebellion of his generation that people wanted; that's why James Dean endures despite his meager catalogue. Phoenix is indeed the closest thing we have to that today, because even though Day-Lewis is quiet and rarely gives interviews, the guy does know how to play the game. You don't win three Oscars without those skills, regardless of how undeniable those performances were. Because personally, Phoenix in 2012 should have been undeniable, but he denied himself and thus everyone gave him what he wanted. Phoenix has shades of George C. Scott in him, which are certainly welcome in an actor but Scott's legacy is chiefly remembered for one film and one film only: Patton. He's got a host of great work aside from it, but if you don't play the game, you might wind up playing yourself. But then again, you could wind up like Penn: a consummate networker who has legions of devoted friends in the business, but who hits a wall and hits it hard and can't break through.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 14, 2018 16:13:31 GMT
I agree with a lot of those points but some of the particulars are interestingly different across actors.
For example DDL's appeal is much more women based than Bale's - like many women got their hearts a flutter with DDL. It's a big source of his status that's never discussed and not everyone has that either but DiCaprio has that. So DiCaprio isn't like DDL but in some ways only he is.
One person who had that sex appeal thing in comparison to DDL was Depp (who in other ways is nothing like him at all) but for a time in a way, more than Penn imo specifically pre-dated Phoenix's approach.
Nobody says it and Depp seems far more lightweight but a slight tweak of his weird role choices one way and a slight tweak in Phoenix's the other way and you have a sort of strange similarity between them. Penn did have the aspect you say too but he didn't really have an oddball weird quality to him that Depp and Phoenix have in spades.
They have it so much that you can say fairly or unfairly, play someone "normal". Depp would have seemed at one time, before his career imploded as appropriate for the Joker the same way Phoenix does. Penn could have been cast but it wouldn't have seemed as "right".
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 14, 2018 16:29:27 GMT
I think Dicaprio and Washington share a lot more in common than box office consistency. When you ask the average joe or jane on social media whom are the greatest actors of their respective generations, you'll very often hear "Leo" and "Denzel" over someone like DDL. Right now the only realistic living threats to break Jack Nicholson's record for the most nominated male actor are Washington (because at 8, he's not far off and still has time, despite being over 60) and Dicaprio (because at 5, he's still young enough, and until proven otherwise still an Academy favorite). I can't see any other realistic challengers to potentially get to Nicholson's total. Certainly not DDL, who was too workshy to challenge for the record even when he wasn't "retired". i just feel Washington and Dicaprio occupy a much more similar space culturally and what they mean to people, than with DDL.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 14, 2018 16:39:00 GMT
I agree with a lot of those points but some of the particulars are interestingly different across actors. For example DDL's appeal is much more women based than Bale's - like many women got their hearts a flutter with DDL. It's a big source of his status that's never discussed and not everyone has that either but DiCaprio has that. So DiCaprio isn't like DDL but in some ways only he is. One person who had that sex appeal thing in comparison to DDL was Depp (who in other ways is nothing like him at all) but for a time in a way, more than Penn imo specifically pre-dated Phoenix's approach. Nobody says it and Depp seems far more lightweight but a slight tweak of his weird role choices one way and a slight tweak in Phoenix's the other way and you have a sort of strange similarity between them. Penn did have the aspect you say too but he didn't really have an oddball weird quality to him that Depp and Phoenix have in spades. They have it so much that you can say fairly or unfairly, play someone "normal". Depp would have seemed at one time, before his career imploded as appropriate for the Joker the same way Phoenix does. Penn could have been cast but it wouldn't have seemed as "right". I'm sort of missing the part where Bale isn't supposed to have as much female appeal as DDL. If anything, I'd say Bale has more. He's considered an extremely good looking guy (one of the reasons fans consider him the perfect Batman over Michael Keaton, is because they believe Bale has the looks to be a panty dropping playboy like Bruce Wayne is supposed to be, while Keaton just never looked the part). I'd say Dicaprio, Washington, Bale and DDL are all considered conventionally good looking guys that women find desirable/attractive (moreso for DDL and Washington in their primes). Your Phoenixs and Oldmans are not seen as conventionally handsome compared to the quartet I mentioned, but they are in movies, so plenty of women still find them attractive or edgy.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 14, 2018 16:44:40 GMT
I think Dicaprio and Washington share a lot more in common than box office consistency. When you ask the average joe or jane on social media whom are the greatest actors of their respective generations, you'll very often hear "Leo" and "Denzel" over someone like DDL. Right now the only realistic living threats to break Jack Nicholson's record for the most nominated male actor are Washington (because at 8, he's not far off and still has time, despite being over 60) and Dicaprio (because at 5, he's still young enough, and until proven otherwise still an Academy favorite). I can't see any other realistic challengers to potentially get to Nicholson's total. Certainly not DDL, who was too workshy to challenge for the record even when he wasn't "retired". i just feel Washington and Dicaprio occupy a much more similar space culturally and what they mean to people, than with DDL. Well, both guys have enough of a rep that they can be comfortably called by their first names and people immediately know you're not talking about Leo Fitzpatrick or Denzel Whitaker. I don't put that much stock in awards being correlative to an enduring legacy, but they are somewhat correlative to films that are popular at a given time. Nicholson, for example, was nominated for films that are arguably all still popular today in some fashion; he's very much like Washington and DiCaprio in that if you say "Jack," you think of him before you think of Jack Lemmon, despite Lemmon being the superior actor in every respect. Movie stardom often eclipses skill and talent, although in some cases they go hand-in-hand. Certainly, I would never have considered DiCaprio one of the greats prior to 2012, which is when I feel he realized what sort of actor he was and played to his strengths and began to live up to the promise he'd initially evinced in his pre- Titanic days. Does the fact that the average joe/jane's reaction to a given question mean anything in terms of an actor's talent? No. But I'll freely admit that when it comes to the masses, Washington and DiCaprio both have the edge on Day-Lewis because they did more films that more people actually saw. And I wouldn't be surprised if Washington ties Nicholson's record. DiCaprio is a potential challenger but if he continues to take these DDL-esque breaks, he won't be able to match it just for time constraints alone. So yes, Washington and DiCaprio share a lot of similarities: box-office consistency, name recognition, etc. But Washington's far more prolific and seemingly less choosy than DiCaprio, although that seems to be out of necessity rather than by design. Even now, Washington can't command the whims of a director the way DiCaprio can. In that respect, Leo is alone in this day and age, because the only other actor who could do that is Daniel Day-Lewis, whose very involvement in a project would make it or break it. Directors wouldn't make their movies without him; Scorsese had to beg him to come back from Italy for Gangs, PTA said that There Will Be Blood would never have been made if DDL said no, Spielberg had to delay Lincoln several times and by several years before DDL agreed to it, etc., etc. Who else can boast that these days?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 14, 2018 16:53:18 GMT
I'd really bristle at that Oscar nominations thing - the basic point there is all end up between 9-12+ - that's really close (and I'm including a whole lot of guys, I dunno, Bridges, what DDL might have done and his pace, Newman, Olivier, etc. - there's not much of a difference when everyone has that big number) especially when you consider Nicholson doesn't have many instances of "he was robbed!" and which all other actors have a lot of. That's because Jack was the all-time networker/schmoozer not Sean Penn .......
What sets Nicholson apart is the fact that he has nobody who's like him in his era - it's not really the Oscar nods, that's more incidental, it's that uniqueness - in that way Washington is helped by his race and DiCaprio is helped by his director selectivity.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 14, 2018 17:08:08 GMT
I'm sort of missing the part where Bale isn't supposed to have as much female appeal as DDL. If anything, I'd say Bale has more. He's considered an extremely good looking guy (one of the reasons fans consider him the perfect Batman over Michael Keaton, is because they believe Bale has the looks to be a panty dropping playboy like Bruce Wayne is supposed to be, while Keaton just never looked the part).
I'd say Dicaprio, Washington, Bale and DDL are all considered conventionally good looking guys that women find desirable/attractive (moreso for DDL and Washington in their primes). Your Phoenixs and Oldmans are not seen as conventionally handsome compared to the quartet I mentioned, but they are in movies, so plenty of women still find them attractive or edgy.
I don't really see it like that in terms of movie image - Bale who is playing Dick Cheyney, played The Machinist, The Big Short - he changes his look in a way that works against his looks.
Washington yes but less so than the other 2 - he lacks the romantic roles that DiCaprio had the planted it in the heads of a whole generation of females fans (Romeo & Juliet and Titanic) and the DDL prestige ones - Unbearable Lightness of Being, Age of Innocence, Phantom Thread etc. it's a different thing and he's got it in a different way, he's more romantic than people first might realize.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 14, 2018 17:22:49 GMT
I think Dicaprio and Washington share a lot more in common than box office consistency. When you ask the average joe or jane on social media whom are the greatest actors of their respective generations, you'll very often hear "Leo" and "Denzel" over someone like DDL. Right now the only realistic living threats to break Jack Nicholson's record for the most nominated male actor are Washington (because at 8, he's not far off and still has time, despite being over 60) and Dicaprio (because at 5, he's still young enough, and until proven otherwise still an Academy favorite). I can't see any other realistic challengers to potentially get to Nicholson's total. Certainly not DDL, who was too workshy to challenge for the record even when he wasn't "retired". i just feel Washington and Dicaprio occupy a much more similar space culturally and what they mean to people, than with DDL. Well, both guys have enough of a rep that they can be comfortably called by their first names and people immediately know you're not talking about Leo Fitzpatrick or Denzel Whitaker. I don't put that much stock in awards being correlative to an enduring legacy, but they are somewhat correlative to films that are popular at a given time. Nicholson, for example, was nominated for films that are arguably all still popular today in some fashion; he's very much like Washington and DiCaprio in that if you say "Jack," you think of him before you think of Jack Lemmon, despite Lemmon being the superior actor in every respect. Movie stardom often eclipses skill and talent, although in some cases they go hand-in-hand. Certainly, I would never have considered DiCaprio one of the greats prior to 2012, which is when I feel he realized what sort of actor he was and played to his strengths and began to live up to the promise he'd initially evinced in his pre- Titanic days. Does the fact that the average joe/jane's reaction to a given question mean anything in terms of an actor's talent? No. But I'll freely admit that when it comes to the masses, Washington and DiCaprio both have the edge on Day-Lewis because they did more films that more people actually saw. And I wouldn't be surprised if Washington ties Nicholson's record. DiCaprio is a potential challenger but if he continues to take these DDL-esque breaks, he won't be able to match it just for time constraints alone. So yes, Washington and DiCaprio share a lot of similarities: box-office consistency, name recognition, etc. But Washington's far more prolific and seemingly less choosy than DiCaprio, although that seems to be out of necessity rather than by design. Even now, Washington can't command the whims of a director the way DiCaprio can. In that respect, Leo is alone in this day and age, because the only other actor who could do that is Daniel Day-Lewis, whose very involvement in a project would make it or break it. Directors wouldn't make their movies without him; Scorsese had to beg him to come back from Italy for Gangs, PTA said that There Will Be Blood would never have been made if DDL said no, Spielberg had to delay Lincoln several times and by several years before DDL agreed to it, etc., etc. Who else can boast that these days? Not counting TV credits, Dicaprio has made 30 movies. Washington has made 46. Now seeing that Washington made his feature film debut exactly 10 years before Dicaprio, a 16 film differential between them seem like much at all. I'd say they are about as prolific as each other. And I'd suggest that Washington is actually very choosy. But in a way to suit his own aims (which isn't always about aiming for awards season). He decided that he's going to combine being the best actor of his generation with being a part-time action and genre star. It's a clear career stategy that worked out phenomenally well for him. But he doesn't attach himself to any/every action film that will give him a check (like say, Liam Neeson). He attached himself to Tony Scott, considered one of the masters of the action genre. That's a move indicating quality product. With Scott gone, he's now dong it mostky with Antoine Fuqua, who at this point is as close to an R-Rated Tony Scott level action director as you'll find working. Several action based scripts he attaches himself to come from The Blacklist (which is considered the list for the best unproduced screenplays in Hollywood). The Book Of Eli, Safe House and The Equalizer were all Blacklist scripts. Again, an indication that he's choosy about the genre material he goes after. As for Washington commanding the whims of directors....he turned down a lot of the huge ones in his younger days (because pretty much every director wanted him in the 90's, just like with DDL). And in the business, that can be taken personally and they may never come back to you again. Washington has turned down Spielberg (Amistad), Fincher (Seven), Oliver Stone (his version of Ali), Clint Eastwood ( A Perfect World). I don't think the fact that Washington once said no to a lot of these major auteurs can be ignored (and he wasn't very nice about rejecting Spielberg's offer either). He's also had projects that fell through with Nicolas Winding Refn and David Cronenberg. And Dan Gilroy wrote Romam J Israel specifically for him and no one else (and his brother Tony wanted Washington first for Michael Clayton). I think great directors have wanted to work with Washington, but it hasn't always worked out. i would exactly say the list of directors he's worked with are bums though, and some of them overlap with Dicaprio like Ed Zwick and Ridley Scott. Not to mention that a lot of the most important new auteurs in the industry are black or African-American, and I can see them chasing after Washington, in the same way white auteurs went after DDL or Dicaprio. Jordan Peele, Steve McQueen, Ryan Coogler, Dee Rees, Barry Jenkins....I feel like he'll end up working with most or all of them before he's done.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 14, 2018 17:30:42 GMT
I'm sort of missing the part where Bale isn't supposed to have as much female appeal as DDL. If anything, I'd say Bale has more. He's considered an extremely good looking guy (one of the reasons fans consider him the perfect Batman over Michael Keaton, is because they believe Bale has the looks to be a panty dropping playboy like Bruce Wayne is supposed to be, while Keaton just never looked the part).
I'd say Dicaprio, Washington, Bale and DDL are all considered conventionally good looking guys that women find desirable/attractive (moreso for DDL and Washington in their primes). Your Phoenixs and Oldmans are not seen as conventionally handsome compared to the quartet I mentioned, but they are in movies, so plenty of women still find them attractive or edgy.
I don't really see it like that in terms of movie image - Bale who is playing Dick Cheyney, played The Machinist, The Big Short - he changes his look in a way that works against his looks. Washington yes but less so than the other 2 - he lacks the romantic roles that DiCaprio had the planted it in the heads of a whole generation of females fans (Romeo & Juliet and Titanic) and the DDL prestige ones - Unbearable Lightness of Being, Age of Innocence, Phantom Thread etc. it's a different thing and he's got it in a different way, he's more romantic than people first might realize. Washington was voted the sexiest man alive in 1996. Time magazine did some study and said he had the perfect symmetrical face for people to find attractive. His sex appeal crosses racial barriers, but he's literally been the dream man for black women across the planet for 30 years or something (Salt N'Pepa even wrote a song about it in the 90's. Something about wanting a man with a Denzel face and an Arnold Schwarzneggar body). Denzel is a far, far, far bigger sex symbol than DDL ever was or ever will be. Seriously they are not even in the same ballpark in that score, no matter how many romantic costume dramas DDL might or might not have done. Washington didn't even need to overplay the romantic leading man aspect on film for his sex symbol status to be so overwhelming. His looks, swagger and confidence onscreen was enough for him to be considered a Grade-A panty dropper . Dicaprio was/is a huge sex symbol, and so much of his initial appeal came from a teenage girl fanbase. That I can agree with
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 14, 2018 17:42:01 GMT
Well, both guys have enough of a rep that they can be comfortably called by their first names and people immediately know you're not talking about Leo Fitzpatrick or Denzel Whitaker. I don't put that much stock in awards being correlative to an enduring legacy, but they are somewhat correlative to films that are popular at a given time. Nicholson, for example, was nominated for films that are arguably all still popular today in some fashion; he's very much like Washington and DiCaprio in that if you say "Jack," you think of him before you think of Jack Lemmon, despite Lemmon being the superior actor in every respect. Movie stardom often eclipses skill and talent, although in some cases they go hand-in-hand. Certainly, I would never have considered DiCaprio one of the greats prior to 2012, which is when I feel he realized what sort of actor he was and played to his strengths and began to live up to the promise he'd initially evinced in his pre- Titanic days. Does the fact that the average joe/jane's reaction to a given question mean anything in terms of an actor's talent? No. But I'll freely admit that when it comes to the masses, Washington and DiCaprio both have the edge on Day-Lewis because they did more films that more people actually saw. And I wouldn't be surprised if Washington ties Nicholson's record. DiCaprio is a potential challenger but if he continues to take these DDL-esque breaks, he won't be able to match it just for time constraints alone. So yes, Washington and DiCaprio share a lot of similarities: box-office consistency, name recognition, etc. But Washington's far more prolific and seemingly less choosy than DiCaprio, although that seems to be out of necessity rather than by design. Even now, Washington can't command the whims of a director the way DiCaprio can. In that respect, Leo is alone in this day and age, because the only other actor who could do that is Daniel Day-Lewis, whose very involvement in a project would make it or break it. Directors wouldn't make their movies without him; Scorsese had to beg him to come back from Italy for Gangs, PTA said that There Will Be Blood would never have been made if DDL said no, Spielberg had to delay Lincoln several times and by several years before DDL agreed to it, etc., etc. Who else can boast that these days? Not counting TV credits, Dicaprio has made 30 movies. Washington has made 46. Now seeing that Washington made his feature film debut exactly 10 years before Dicaprio, a 16 film differential between them seem like much at all. I'd say they are about as prolific as each other. And I'd suggest that Washington is actually very choosy. But in a way to suit his own aims (which isn't always about aiming for awards season). He decided that he's going to combine being the best actor of his generation with being a part-time action and genre star. It's a clear career stategy that worked out phenomenally well for him. But he doesn't attach himself to any/every action film that will give him a check (like say, Liam Neeson). He attached himself to Tony Scott, considered one of the masters of the action genre. That's a move indicating quality product. With Scott gone, he's now dong it mostky with Antoine Fuqua, who at this point is as close to an R-Rated Tony Scott level action director as you'll find working. Several action based scripts he attaches himself to come from The Blacklist (which is considered the list for the best unproduced screenplays in Hollywood). The Book Of Eli, Safe House and The Equalizer were all Blacklist scripts. Again, an indication that he's choosy about the genre material he goes after. As for Washington commanding the whims of directors....he turned down a lot of the huge ones in his younger days (because pretty much every director wanted him in the 90's, just like with DDL). And in the business, that can be taken personally and they may never come back to you again. Washington has turned down Spielberg (Amistad), Fincher (Seven), Oliver Stone (his version of Ali), Clint Eastwood ( A Perfect World). I don't think the fact that Washington once said no to a lot of these major auteurs can be ignored (and he wasn't very nice about rejecting Spielberg's offer either). He's also had projects that feel through with Nicolas Winding Refn and David Cronenberg. And Dan Gilroy wrote Romam J Israel specifically for him and no one else (and his brother Tony wanted Washington first for Michael Clayton). I think great directors have wanted to work with Washington, but it hasn't always worked out. i would exactly say the list of directors he's worked with are bums though, and some of them overlap with Dicaprio like Ed Zwick and Ridley Scott. Not to mention that a lot of the most important new auteurs in the industry are black or African-American, and I can see them chasing after Washington, in the same way white auteurs went after DDL or Dicaprio. Jordan Peele, Steve McQueen, Ryan Coogler, Dee Rees, Barry Jenkins....I feel like he'll end up working with most or all of them before he's done. But DiCaprio has begun to take extended breaks of late, something I don't recall ever happening with Washington. The thing of it is, even if Denzel got offered those roles, those movies for the most part still got made. Washington may have courted a lot of big-time directors, but very rarely do I think that the projects would've fallen through if he'd said no. It might very well have bred resentment in those directors, not wanting to hire him again after that. It is unclear whether or not Dan Gilroy would've made the film if Washington had turned him down, but his brother did make Michael Clayton without him. But when it comes to DDL, the only film he made in the last 15 years that you can argue would still have been made without him is Nine, because all of the films save for that were made contingent on DDL's involvement. Even if Washington passed on a role, the movie was still made. I also think that Washington might've been hurt by his seeming reluctance to schmooze; he doesn't seem particularly into the Hollywood scene and rarely seems happy to be at awards shows and the like. Makes me wonder how he viewed his fellow nominee Phoenix in 2012, and whether there was a tacit approval from him. I think Washington has done decently when it comes to working with big-name directors, although I'd argue he and DiCaprio share a similar trap in that they constantly work with the same names over and over. There's something to be said for a good actor/director pairing, but after a certain amount of time, it just starts to feel lazy on both parties. I understand the limitations Washington has to deal with, but I feel he rarely gets the opportunity to just let loose. There's a reason I feel Fences is such a great film/performance: I think it speaks to his ambition and what he wants to do, and I wonder if he designed it as something of a demo reel to show to other directors he'd like to work with. Now that Washington is entering his winter years, he probably will be courted to play more elder statesman roles, particularly among younger filmmakers (not necessarily black ones, either). DiCaprio's just now entering middle age, and it remains to be seen where he decides to go from here. Scorsese doesn't have a whole lot of workable years left in him, sad to say.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 14, 2018 17:46:41 GMT
No.
The point was raised by me for DDL's appeal in comparison to DiCaprio's and Bale and Depp's/Phoenix. It wasn't in relation to Washington, you added that later (I'm not sure why?).
While I can certainly see Washington's status as you described he is not as romantic an actor as Day-Lewis, he hasn't catered to it in his work, a sex symbol in real life and a romantic leading man in screen persona is not the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 14, 2018 17:56:12 GMT
While I can certainly see Washington's status as you described he is not as romantic an actor as Day-Lewis, he hasn't catered to it in his work, a sex symbol in real life and a romantic leading man in screen persona is not the same thing. Washington has had exactly as many romantic leading man parts as Day-Lewis. The Preacher's Wife The Mighty Quinn Mo Better Blues Mississip Massala Much Ado About Nothing Basically, a decent chunk of Washington's career in the 90's was playing up to his romantic leading man/sexiest man alive tag with "romantic" parts to get the ladies swooning.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 14, 2018 18:00:03 GMT
Oh, I'd also count Devil In A Blue Dress as a romantic leading man part. A smooth private detective constantly walking around in a white wifebeater trying to save some mysterious dame. The iconography of Washington in that film is designed to get women moist.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 14, 2018 18:06:09 GMT
No one saw Much Ado About Nothing, Mississippi Massala, The Mighty Quinn. Didn't we just say Washington has 46 movies which would more than double DDL's so it's really not that close? How many Denzel fans have even seen those 3 - they are hardly a footprint in his career work overall.
You have to see the difference between those films and say The Unbearable Lightness of Being, The Age of Innocence, The Crucible, Phantom Thread? Or even Last of the Mohicans or Nine - and his presence in them as the romantic lead?
Ok, we just disagree, that's not even close, it's not even that big of a deal, but it is what it is.......one actor didn't do it much or much of note, one actor almost specialized in it.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 14, 2018 18:24:47 GMT
Hold on a sec....no one saw those Washington movies, but apparently these DDL films have been seen by all and sundry?
The Unbearable Lightness Of Being made 10 million dollars. Mo Better Blues made 16 million dollars around the same era.
The Preacher's Wife made 50 million dollars (compared to 32 Million for The Age Of Innocence), and because it's a seasonal staple, likely gets more more TV airplay today than any of DDL's romantic leading man films
Much Ado About Nothing made 23 million dollars in 1993. Phantom Thread made 21 million dollars in 2017. Accounting for inflation, far more people saw Much Ado About Nothing than Phantom Thread. Not to mention it's one of Branagh's most well liked, star studded and accesible Shakespeare adaptations.
If we are being honest, most millenials don't know or care about DDL as a "romantic leading man". His films in the vein did not have a huge impact, outside of a few during awards season. Maybe Last Of The Mohicans is an exception because it was also an action film, in which case you can count Deja Vu for Washington (it's a time travel love story). They really know DDL as that crazy dude from Gangs Of New York and There Will Be Blood, and maybe as Prez Lincoln
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 14, 2018 18:32:02 GMT
Hold on a sec....no one saw those Washington movies, but apparently these DDL films have been seen by all and sundry? The Unbearable Lightness Of Being made 10 million dollars. Mo Better Blues made 16 million dollars around the same era. The Preacher's Wife made 50 million dollars, and because it's a seasonal staple, likely gets more more TV airplay today than any of DDL's romantic leading man films Much Ado About Nothing made 23 million dollars in 1993. Phantom Thread made 21 million dollars in 2017. Accounting for inflation, far more people saw Much Ado About Nothing than Phantom Thread. Not to mention it's one of Branagh's most well liked, star studded and accesible Shakespeare adaptations. If we are being honest, most millenials don't know or care about DDL as a "romantic leading man". His films in the vein did not have a huge impact, outside of a few during awards season. Maybe Last Of The Mohicans is an exception because it was also an action film, in which case you can count Deja Vu for Washington (it;s a time travel love story). They really know DDL as that crazy dude who from Gangs Of New York and There Will Be Blood, and maybe as Prez Lincoln Much Ado About Nothing is a Shakespearean adaptation ensemble piece. That already has a built-in audience. It's hardly comparable to Phantom Thread, which featured a complete unknown as one of its leads. I don't want to get bogged down in the waters of discussion on whether or not either man fits the bill as a romantic lead. Denzel Washington was voted Sexiest Man Alive and has a built-in fanbase, and his roles generally play toward the brand of level-headed badass that just makes him more attractive. Aside from (most of) Roman J. Israel, Esq., when was the last time Washington played a character that looked like anything other than, well, Denzel and came without that built-in swagger and sensibility? Daniel Day-Lewis was definitely considered a dreamboat in his early days, make no mistake (and Last of the Mohicans definitely emphasized that; read any of the press at the time and he more than fits the bill for it), but most of his roles afterward more or less eschewed his looks. He blackened his teeth for The Crucible, for crying out loud. He repudiated the romantic lead image. Even Phantom Thread (which I'd define as a romantic comedy of sorts, albeit a really twisted one) doesn't glamorize him.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 14, 2018 18:46:19 GMT
Well, I would say you're in real trouble when you say : "let's be honest" (righhhhhhhhht), randomly bring up "millenials", quote Box Office stats deceptively (how many people have seen and loved those DDL movies over the years not just in "1993 dollars") try to pretend that Washington is not a member of the freakin' Supporting cast of Much Ado About Nothing when DDL is the center-piece of all of his films.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 14, 2018 18:52:56 GMT
Again, this is a false argument. Sex symbol is not romantic lead, and certainly not a term I brought up.
I'd actually say because he didn't glamorize his looks as he got older it's more important to him - he worked variations of it more into his characters as he got older - the romance is the center of all his later films except GONY and TWBB - The Boxer, Ballad Of Jack and Rose, Phantom Thread, Nine, his relationship with Mary in Lincoln, The Crucible - that's the last 20 years of his career.
It's obvious.......it's his thing.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 14, 2018 18:53:55 GMT
Pac, you were the one who claimed "no one saw Much Ado About Nothing", which is just a ridiculous assertion no matter what size Washington's role in it was (but it was a romantic leading man type role, even if it was within an ensemble)
I'm pretty sure people are still watching Much Ado About Nothing today. And The Preacher's Wife. And Devil In A Blue Dress. And Mo Better Blues. There's a decent catalogue of Washington in romantic leading man roles that plenty of people have watched and continue to watch.
And I'm sure some people are still enjoying some of those DDL films you mentioned.
Sounds like a fairer statement all round.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 14, 2018 20:41:33 GMT
Stephen: One thing I have to disagree about (though you made many good points) is how much DDL played down his looks over his career. He hasn't done it anywhere as much as you suggest.
He obviously did it for My Left Foot. But after that, he was literally handsome Daniel in everything up till Gangs Of New York (and I suspect he started getting a stronger young male following with this role than he ever had before, because not only was he playing a nutcase, but he wasn't a handsome nutcase).
I didn't realise the blackened teeth thing for The Crucible.But it made no difference to him looking pretty good. The guy still looked like a Byronic hero in that movie, with his long Vidal Sassoon hair, and carefully coifed beard. I guess that's supposed to be 'Hollywood ugly', but it wasn't even that.
He was his usual handsome self in The Boxer. It's only really My Left Foot, Gangs Of New York, There Will Be Blood and Lincoln where DDL has really downplayed his looks.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 14, 2018 21:03:41 GMT
Yeah, tbh I can't figure you guys out today a little, I wasn't being negative towards Denzel or negative towards DDL but I think you and stephen both kind of took it that way in each case a little.
In the case of Denzel I just meant it to neutral, I know women like him, but his acting doesn't go in that direction to me (generally).
In the case of DDL I wasn't saying he was a pretty boy, but rather like you said he was a great looking guy and his acting and the roles that appealed to him clearly didn't go away from that direction. It is very much in the tradition of the actors in the UK that he is in the tradition of - up to a point - Olivier, Burton, Finney for a while........it's one of the central threads that run through his work. It's not even remotely being a pretty boy or a negative, it's not Richard Gere stuff nor should it be equated as that.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 14, 2018 21:06:12 GMT
Stephen: One thing I have to disagree about (though you made many good points) is how much DDL played down his looks over his career. He hasn't done it anywhere as much as you suggest. He obviously did it for My Left Foot. But after that, he was literally handsome Daniel in everything up till Gangs Of New York (and I suspect he started getting a stronger young male following with this role than he ever had before, because not only was he playing a nutcase, but he wasn't a handsome nutcase). I didn't realise the blackened teeth thing for The Crucible.But it made no difference to him looking pretty good. The guy still looked like a Byronic hero in that movie, with his long Vidal Sassoon hair, and carefully coifed beard. I guess that's supposed to be 'Hollywood ugly', but it wasn't even that. He was his usual handsome self in The Boxer. It's only really My Left Foot, Gangs Of New York, There Will Be Blood and Lincoln where DDL has really downplayed his looks. Well, Day-Lewis is a naturally good-looking dude, and it's really hard to ignore that or cover that up. But let's look at post- Last of the Mohicans, which is where that Byronic hero image really came to the fore and made him a sex symbol. By the time that Mohicans came out, he'd already shot or was in the process of shooting his 1993 double-feature, so it's hard to really judge either of those performances in terms of a reaction to his image from Mohicans. In The Crucible, he's pretty grunged up. He isn't ugly or anything in it, but he's pretty filthy (and I believe that he had forgone bathing for some time during the film's latter sequences). He's still Daniel Day-Lewis, but he's what DDL would actually look like in that era. If people are into that, that's cool, but I don't think DDL decided to blacken his teeth and think, "Yeah, the ladies are gonna go gaga for poor dental hygiene." In The Boxer, he's still good-looking, but he's got that doofy-ass haircut and he takes quite a few wallops in it to bloody him up, but I'll concede this one. But it's a film that hinges on a romantic angle, so I guess it wouldn't do to have him beaten up like Ryan Gosling in a Bangkok dojo. Then you have his sabbatical, and when he returns for Gangs, gone is the smoldering romance-novel torridity of his Hawkeye or even the stately charm of his Newland Archer. Bill the Butcher is a brute, a gaudily-gussied dandy with oily hair and a big honkin' handlebar mustache. He positively oozes charisma (and even a bit of sex appeal, enough to be convincing that this guy would draw ladies and gentlemen alike), but there is nothing traditional about his portrayal. The Ballad of Jack and Rose is probably the one time Daniel Day-Lewis didn't put up much of a facade after his hiatus, but there is nothing sexual about Jack (at least, not in the way that we would want it). There's zero sexuality to Daniel Plainview and Abraham Lincoln (unless you're into that, I guess?). He cops a lot of flak for Nine, but I actually think he had fantastic chemistry with Cotillard. I found him believable as a lothario, but his best chemistry was with the spouse he was cheating on, and I guess your mileage may vary on his accent choice/singing ability. Phantom Thread doesn't really try to downplay his age, and even though he's still a handsome chap in his sixties, Reynolds's fussiness overshadows that. Compare Washington's roles of late. I saw you mention Fences and Taking of Pelham 123. In Fences, I'm just seeing Denzel as he is: some gray at the temples, a few extra pounds, but the guy still looks damn good for his age. If you told me he was forty-two instead of sixty-two, I'd believe it. And even though he plays a tough bastard/philanderer in it, his natural charm and swagger might obscure those issues to the average cinemagoer as opposed to if someone like James Earl Jones had played it. He tries to "average it up" a bit in Pelham but his gravitas does a lot to undercut that somewhat; it doesn't help that Travolta's ridiculous gangster get-up makes Denzel's look seem downright badass in comparison. Roman J. Israel, Esq. has the same problem. I think that Washington wanted very much to steer from his typical image, and for much of the film he does that quite well, but I think Gilroy couldn't resist bringing that Denzel-ness to the character. I don't think this is any knock on Washington or that DDL's attempts to escape the label make him better or anything like that. This isn't Brando getting fat in the 1960s. I think Washington has worked for years to cultivate a brand, whereas DDL's brand is to completely obscure the real image of himself. Both have done very well at this.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 14, 2018 21:08:05 GMT
Yeah, tbh I can't figure you guys out today a little, I wasn't being negative towards Denzel or negative towards DDL but I think you and stephen both kind of took it that way in each case a little. In the case of Denzel I just meant it to neutral, I know women like him, but his acting doesn't go in that direction to me (generally). In the case of DDL I wasn't saying he was a pretty boy, but rather like you said he was a great looking guy and his acting and the roles that appealed to him clearly didn't go away from that direction. It is very much in the tradition of the actors in the UK that he is in the tradition of - up to a point - Olivier, Burton, Finney for a while........it's one of the central threads that run through his work. It's not even remotely being a pretty boy or a negative, it's not Richard Gere stuff nor should it be equated as that. Nah, I'm not taking anything negatively. But I'm happy to take up the mantle of discussion on behalf of DDL (or really, anything) in order to keep the topic going, because there is a lot of interesting stuff to talk about in regards to their respective careers/images. It's just interesting that we almost always wind back up at the big guys: DDL, Denzel, and I'm sure Pacino isn't far behind.
|
|