|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 10, 2018 12:59:58 GMT
I wasn't sure where to put this but I figured movies take up most of our thoughts and the Polls section seemed to limiting to elaborate.
Who is the actor or actress you think has distinguished themselves the most across these all - usually an actor can't serve all of them with some of them suffering. But I think this is going to be an important thing for actors and the public for the future since film and TV are blurring anyway and many young actors seem excited to be back in theater (Gyllenhaal, Cooper, etc.)
For me, it's clearly Laurence Olivier for males who did it at a time when TV was far more limited too (and I know you may think his movie work is dated, but I don't agree). Certainly his stage work is staggering, much of his better and successful on film work is actually in TV (5 Emmy's, including a definitive Lear), and he's of course at 10 Oscar nominations so he had an extremely distinguished film career of 40+ years.
There's other contenders here, but none I think that served all 3 medium as evenly as him:
Rylance (monumental actor but still limited by amount in 2 of the 3 fields), Pacino (closer but he would really need to deservedly win a 3rd Emmy AND maybe even a 2nd Oscar to build a better case) are ahead of the next group - Spacey/Finney/Plummer etc. but Olivier just has so much quality work. If you go for the other British actors in the Olivier-era (Guinness, Gielgud, etc.) they're not equivalent to him stature-wise anyway. Olivier really was something else and all these years later I think it's almost inconceivable to us looking back to understand what he did.
Actress is really where it gets interesting to me because you have someone so far out in front in film acclaim (Streep) and she has dabbled in theater to some acclaim and TV too (2 (deserved) Emmy's) so she may tilt the scales so much in film as to win by default in the overall. But then again.......there's Lange/Mirren/Redgrave/Page who served all 3 deeper.
Who is missing for females historically or is that more a clear case (I consider Huppert the greatest film actress but for these purposes I can't rank her #1 here even though she does theater, etc.)?
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Mar 10, 2018 15:45:54 GMT
not all-time best... but a few guys that did good across all 3...
George C. Scott - 8 Emmy noms, 2 wins. 3 Tony noms (+Drama Desk lifetime achievement award for devotion to the theater), and obviously his film work.... 4 Oscar noms/1 win and at least a few snubs...
Henry Fonda- obvious film career, 3 Emmy noms, a Tony and another nod or two.....
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 10, 2018 16:04:44 GMT
Mark Rylance is definitely one to consider. His stage work is unimpeachable, to the point that he may very well be the greatest stage actor alive and by some distance to boot. His film work is spotty but he delivered an all-timer with Bridge of Spies and he also has Dunkirk to his credit, not to mention a joyous romp in The BFG. And his television work had him give what I consider the greatest male performance in television history (Wolf Hall) as well as an incredible turn in The Government Inspector). He's an Emmy away from the triple crown, and when the Wolf Hall series comes out, you know he's going to be heavy in contention for it.
For the ladies, it'd have to be my all-time favorite actress: Geraldine Page. I would also argue that Amanda Plummer should be in consideration.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 10, 2018 16:17:57 GMT
Yeah good picks and Scott is an interesting one - he's up there for Americans with Jason Robards to me in some ways.
Like I consider Scott to be the most talented American actor of the 60s in a certain kind of way - usually in that decade people love Newman, some love Beatty, some McQueen and I love them too - but everyone's looking for a star actor and he was weirder - sort of a character actor/star hybrid.
Anatomy Of A Murder-Patton is a pretty stellar run (including The Hustler, Dr. Strangelove, Flim-Flam Man)
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 10, 2018 16:21:07 GMT
Yeah good picks and Scott is an interesting one - he's up there for Americans with Jason Robards to me in some ways. Like I consider Scott to be the most talented American actor of the 60s in a certain kind of way - usually in that decade people love Newman, some love Beatty, some McQueen and I love them too - but everyone's looking for a star actor and he was weirder - sort of a character actor/star hybrid. Anatomy Of A Murder-Patton is a pretty stellar run (including The Hustler, Dr. Strangelove, Flim-Flam Man) Hey now, you can't just leave out The Hospital like that! But yeah, George C. Scott really does deserve more love. It also provokes an interesting discussion about actors who feel like forerunners/antecedents to other actors. Scott, to me, feels like Lee J. Cobb come again, and it's interesting that Scott wound up taking on two of Cobb's key roles later in life (Lt. Kinderman and Juror #3) and doing quite well with them. It's a shame we never saw Scott play Willy Loman, which was one of my favorite Cobb performances.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 10, 2018 16:37:58 GMT
I loooooooooooooove The Hospital (can't believe I forgot that!) and I hate that director (Arthur Hiller).........it's all Scott and Chayefsky I guess .........
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 10, 2018 17:27:50 GMT
Yeah good picks and Scott is an interesting one - he's up there for Americans with Jason Robards to me in some ways. Like I consider Scott to be the most talented American actor of the 60s in a certain kind of way - usually in that decade people love Newman, some love Beatty, some McQueen and I love them too - but everyone's looking for a star actor and he was weirder - sort of a character actor/star hybrid. Anatomy Of A Murder-Patton is a pretty stellar run (including The Hustler, Dr. Strangelove, Flim-Flam Man) Hey now, you can't just leave out The Hospital like that! But yeah, George C. Scott really does deserve more love. It also provokes an interesting discussion about actors who feel like forerunners/antecedents to other actors. Scott, to me, feels like Lee J. Cobb come again, and it's interesting that Scott wound up taking on two of Cobb's key roles later in life (Lt. Kinderman and Juror #3) and doing quite well with them. It's a shame we never saw Scott play Willy Loman, which was one of my favorite Cobb performances. I think the marginalisation of George C Scott, legacy -wise shows the importance of consistency. He had a pretty magnificent run of about 12 years, from Anatomy Of A Murder up until The Hospital. It was pretty standard for him in the early 70's to be named alongside Brando as the greatest working American actor. But his drop-off was damned steep, and there was no recovery. He eventually became a TV level actor, at a time when that was not regarded as a potentially good thing. Compare Scott to another great American actor with a burly physique and boxers mug, Gene Hackman. He managed to stay consistent and relevant for over 30 years before bowing out, but that prevented him from being as marginal as Scott sometimes is percieved to be. I mean, some people of a certain generation in the industry still hold Scott up as a gold standard in American acting (I believe Scott Rudin said in an interview last year that he regards Marlon Brando, Denzel Washington and George C Scott to be the three greatest American actors of all-time). But Rudin is probably rare to put Scott on that pedastal, and it may be a generational thing. A lot of actors under 40 may not even have any idea who George C Scott is or was.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,670
Likes: 2,107
|
Post by cherry68 on Mar 10, 2018 19:45:38 GMT
Gary Oldman began with stage, went on tv and became famous with movies. I find The firm one of his best performances, not to mention Dead end for Delia.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 10, 2018 19:57:45 GMT
Hey now, you can't just leave out The Hospital like that! But yeah, George C. Scott really does deserve more love. It also provokes an interesting discussion about actors who feel like forerunners/antecedents to other actors. Scott, to me, feels like Lee J. Cobb come again, and it's interesting that Scott wound up taking on two of Cobb's key roles later in life (Lt. Kinderman and Juror #3) and doing quite well with them. It's a shame we never saw Scott play Willy Loman, which was one of my favorite Cobb performances. I think the marginalisation of George C Scott, legacy -wise shows the importance of consistency. He had a pretty magnificent run of about 12 years, from Anatomy Of A Murder up until The Hospital. It was pretty standard for him in the early 70's to be named alongside Brando as the greatest working American actor. But his drop-off was damned steep, and there was no recovery. He eventually became a TV level actor, at a time when that was not regarded as a potentially good thing. Compare Scott to another great American actor with a burly physique and boxers mug, Gene Hackman. He managed to stay consistent and relevant for over 30 years before bowing out, but that prevented him from being as marginal as Scott sometimes is percieved to be. I mean, some people of a certain generation in the industry still hold Scott up as a gold standard in American acting (I believe Scott Rudin said in an interview last year that he regards Marlon Brando, Denzel Washington and George C Scott to be the three greatest American actors of all-time). But Rudin is probably rare to put Scott on that pedastal, and it may be a generational thing. A lot of actors under 40 may not even have any idea who George C Scott is or was. I wonder if a lot of it had to do with Scott not being much of a sociable actor, and who openly rebuffed "the goddamn meat parade" that were the Oscars, the Emmys, etc. Refusing the Oscar made him an interesting bit of trivia, but he was eclipsed two years later when Brando sent Sacheen Littlefeather in his place (Scott's Oscar was accepted by Frank McCarthy, the film's producer). Scott has an iconic performance under his belt in Patton, to the point that when people think of Patton, they think of Scott's portrayal rather than the real man, but while he had an insane run in the films from 1959-1971, he seemed far more at home on the stage, and I think he probably eschewed a lot of movie opportunities in favor of that. And yes, he probably wound up losing possible job offers to Hackman, who was the same basic type yet was younger, fiercer, and more willing to "play ball."
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Mar 10, 2018 20:11:32 GMT
I think the marginalisation of George C Scott, legacy -wise shows the importance of consistency. He had a pretty magnificent run of about 12 years, from Anatomy Of A Murder up until The Hospital. It was pretty standard for him in the early 70's to be named alongside Brando as the greatest working American actor. But his drop-off was damned steep, and there was no recovery. He eventually became a TV level actor, at a time when that was not regarded as a potentially good thing. Compare Scott to another great American actor with a burly physique and boxers mug, Gene Hackman. He managed to stay consistent and relevant for over 30 years before bowing out, but that prevented him from being as marginal as Scott sometimes is percieved to be. I mean, some people of a certain generation in the industry still hold Scott up as a gold standard in American acting (I believe Scott Rudin said in an interview last year that he regards Marlon Brando, Denzel Washington and George C Scott to be the three greatest American actors of all-time). But Rudin is probably rare to put Scott on that pedastal, and it may be a generational thing. A lot of actors under 40 may not even have any idea who George C Scott is or was. I wonder if a lot of it had to do with Scott not being much of a sociable actor, and who openly rebuffed "the goddamn meat parade" that were the Oscars, the Emmys, etc. Refusing the Oscar made him an interesting bit of trivia, but he was eclipsed two years later when Brando sent Sacheen Littlefeather in his place (Scott's Oscar was accepted by Frank McCarthy, the film's producer). Scott has an iconic performance under his belt in Patton, to the point that when people think of Patton, they think of Scott's portrayal rather than the real man, but while he had an insane run in the films from 1959-1971, he seemed far more at home on the stage, and I think he probably eschewed a lot of movie opportunities in favor of that. And yes, he probably wound up losing possible job offers to Hackman, who was the same basic type yet was younger, fiercer, and more willing to "play ball." Also, Scott was absolutely nuts and a wild drunk. I listened to Paul Schrader's audio commentary on Hardcore recently and some of the things he said about old Georgey are just insane. Here's a sample: more here
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 10, 2018 20:12:35 GMT
I think the marginalisation of George C Scott, legacy -wise shows the importance of consistency. He had a pretty magnificent run of about 12 years, from Anatomy Of A Murder up until The Hospital. It was pretty standard for him in the early 70's to be named alongside Brando as the greatest working American actor. But his drop-off was damned steep, and there was no recovery. He eventually became a TV level actor, at a time when that was not regarded as a potentially good thing. Compare Scott to another great American actor with a burly physique and boxers mug, Gene Hackman. He managed to stay consistent and relevant for over 30 years before bowing out, but that prevented him from being as marginal as Scott sometimes is percieved to be. I mean, some people of a certain generation in the industry still hold Scott up as a gold standard in American acting (I believe Scott Rudin said in an interview last year that he regards Marlon Brando, Denzel Washington and George C Scott to be the three greatest American actors of all-time). But Rudin is probably rare to put Scott on that pedastal, and it may be a generational thing. A lot of actors under 40 may not even have any idea who George C Scott is or was. I wonder if a lot of it had to do with Scott not being much of a sociable actor, and who openly rebuffed "the goddamn meat parade" that were the Oscars, the Emmys, etc. Refusing the Oscar made him an interesting bit of trivia, but he was eclipsed two years later when Brando sent Sacheen Littlefeather in his place (Scott's Oscar was accepted by Frank McCarthy, the film's producer). Scott has an iconic performance under his belt in Patton, to the point that when people think of Patton, they think of Scott's portrayal rather than the real man, but while he had an insane run in the films from 1959-1971, he seemed far more at home on the stage, and I think he probably eschewed a lot of movie opportunities in favor of that. And yes, he probably wound up losing possible job offers to Hackman, who was the same basic type yet was younger, fiercer, and more willing to "play ball." I don't think Scott's sociability or lack of it factored much in his decline. If anything, it increased his cache as a serious artist, much like it does for DDL or Brando and his Littlefeather stunt. He was in demand and he probably turned down much better stuff than he took. One look at his IMDB, and it's clear that most of his choices post Patton/The Hospital stunk. Unless you are some crazy George C Scott completist, there's hardly a film of note that you'd go out of your way to track down (maybe Taps, but that's because of the novelty of a future generation of stars as kids in Sean Penn and Tom Cruise) before he drifts off in made for TV-land.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 10, 2018 20:20:33 GMT
I don't think Scott's sociability or lack of it factored much in his decline. If anything, it increased his cache as a serious artist, much like it does for DDL or Brando and his Littlefeather stunt. He was in demand and he probably turned down much better stuff than he took. One look at his IMDB, and it's clear that most of his choices post Patton/The Hospital stunk. Unless you are some crazy George C Scott completist, there's hardly a film of note that you'd go out of your way to track down (maybe Taps, but that's because of the novelty of a future generation of stars as kids in Sean Penn and Tom Cruise) before he drifts off in made for TV-land. Viced also points out that Scott had a nasty booze habit, and had a reputation for being "moody and mercurial" while on the set. Nobody wants to work with an asshole if they can help it, and it sounds like his reputation spread pretty quick. Even with Brando, he became notoriously tough to work with, but he also became pretty selective in taking on parts, and directors knew how to use him. I think a lot of the plum movie roles simply dried up for him. I would argue he still had good work post-1971. A lot of his TV work ( his Scrooge is terrific, his works with Jack Lemmon stand mighty), his Percival McLeach is an underrated Disney villain (in one of my favorite Disney flicks, no less!), and Hardcore is pretty strong work.
|
|
|
Post by amiableamy on Mar 10, 2018 22:37:48 GMT
Uh, Maggie Smith. Two Oscars, a crapload of theater awards, and a popular TV series (and 3 Emmys).
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 13, 2018 0:34:35 GMT
It's funny how one award can make you re-think a person's career even if they've won a lot of awards in general - if Glenn Close had an Oscar to go with her 3 Tony's and a couple Emmy's she'd be considered far more here I think but without it I don't think she pops in the mind much.
Angela Lansbury is sort of like that too (18 Emmy nods - 0 wins!, 5 Tony's)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2018 0:21:41 GMT
Glenn Close and Jeremy Irons were the first to come to mind for me.
I'd say that Anne Hathaway is one to watch - she only needs a Tony to complete her Triple Crown (she's only 35!), and we all know how successfully her talents would transfer to stage, across all genres (drama, comedy, musical).
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1,620
|
Post by Javi on Mar 14, 2018 2:41:17 GMT
Vanessa Redgrave is hard to beat. An incredible career on stage with immense critical acclaim from a very early age. She also won a Tony in the US I believe.
On TV, she gave what's possibly the greatest female performance of that medium, in 1980's Playing for Time (for which she won the Emmy). She won another one for If These Walls Could Talk 2 in 2000.
On film, she may be the greatest supporting actress of all-time. From Julia to Howards End to Coriolanus... you name it. Won the Oscar in 1977. Her career as a leading actress was probably derailed by her politics but that says more about the stupidity of Hollywood producers than about her acting. Even so, she has 4 Oscar nominations for leading roles, plus unnominated work in iconoclastic classics like The Devils and stuff like Agatha, Wetherby, etc.
She's done everything from British New Wave to Shakespeare to box-office hits to hardcore auteur stuff. I don't think any of her contemporaries can touch her. Certainly not Judi Dench who had a thin filmography until recently, and while Maggie Smith has had success across all mediums she's more limited/conventional in the movies she chooses. Only Julie Christie has a more interesting filmography than Redgrave but Christie did very little theatre work so she can't compete.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2018 21:30:42 GMT
Judy Davis, too - her stage work is mostly in Sydney, though.
|
|
|
Post by fiosnasiob on Mar 18, 2018 21:50:24 GMT
Surprised nobody mentionned the best actress of the year, Frances ! Not the best but a winner and multiple nominations at Oscars, Tony & Emmy.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Mar 18, 2018 22:58:44 GMT
Nobody can really beat Olivier due to the immensity of his stage legacy and his being generally regarded as one of the best movie actors too. Also thought of Brando since a lot of people view his Streetcar stage performance as his signature accomplishment, although he didn't do a whole lot on stage. Vanessa Redgrave is a good one for actresses.
John Barrymore might be worth an honorable mention here too. He did a lot on stage and his Hamlet is sometimes cited as the best ever by an American, but in the movies he was good, but pretty much just a romantic movie star.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 19, 2018 0:59:29 GMT
Nicole Kidman needs to be considered up there now as well probably. She's major on film obviously, major on TV after Big Little Lies. But though she's not prolific on stage, she's definitely major on it. She's gotten 2 Olivier Award nominations on the London stage in 2 tries, and 2 Evening Standard Theatre Awards (One for Outstanding Contribution to London Theatre, the other for Best Actress In A Play for Photograph 51). Two of her biggest generational rivals are lacking in one of the mediums. Cate Blanchett is major on film and stage, but hasn't done anything major on TV (despite doing some middling Australian TV in her youth). Kate Winslet is major on film and major on TV (she won most of the major awards for the Mildred Pierce mini-series), but has done no professional stage.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 19, 2018 1:21:13 GMT
Nobody has mentioned Alec Guinness, who I think was probably superior to Laurence Olivier (his generational rival) on Film and TV, though he wasn't honored as much as Larry (he still won a lot though, so can't feel too sorry for old Alec). Olivier may have won Emmys for his TV work (which Guinness never did), but none of his TV work was ever as impactful as Guinness' portrayals of George Smiley in Tinker Tailor, Soldier Spy and Smiley's People.
Guinness is obviously a legendary stage actor as well, though Olivier was more acclaimed. Without having seen either on stage, I wouldn't be suprised if Guinness was the better stage actor of the two either. Guinness seemed like an actor more likely to bring a naturalism to the stage that would be even more appreciated by theatre audiences today, than Olivier's skillfully mannered theatrics (which obviously went down a treat in his day, but might strike some theatregoers today as a bit hamfisted).
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 19, 2018 1:45:30 GMT
I mentioned Guinness in the opening post but it's nice to see mention of his George Smiley indeed.
It is interesting that as George Smiley for example and also Olivier's work on TV were done at a time when they didn't have a lot of options (pre-cable) but a sharp, versatile actor could find a role to repeat to great acclaim like Guinness did or could use TV to sample so many big roles like Olivier did in the 70s and which at that time he couldn't play anywhere else (Williams, Pinter, O'Neill).
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 19, 2018 11:34:34 GMT
I mentioned Guinness in the opening post but it's nice to see mention of his George Smiley indeed. Yes you did. Just looked back and saw it. Bit of a throwaway mention, but you're forgiven I do disagree with your initial statement somewhat that Guinness wasn't equivalent to Olivier stature wise. Olivier was more decorated in their lifetime, but Guinness Guardian obituary in 2000 when he died was pretty succint; "The best known and loved English actor of the 20th century, Sir Alec Guinnesss who has died age 86"
That statement may be arguable, but it's a very bold claim indeed from one of the major British newspapers. Gieguld and Richardson have not really endured that much in public memory despite being considered stage titans comparable to Olivier in their era, because they never had the film careers to match. The likes of James Mason may have have indelible film careers, but lack of stage acclaim kept them from being comparable to Olivier. At the end of it, Guinness was Olivier's only true British peer, across all mediums. He's still a name widely admired today in the British acting fraternity (maybe moreso than Olivier, whose style can be considered a bit more divisive). Olivier may still have slightly more prestige today (particularly since his estate had the clever notion to allow Britain's main stage awards to name themselves after him), but Guinness today is pretty much up there. The Old Vic Theatre did a Poll Of the Greatest British Actor in 2005. Anthony Hopkins won it, Olivier was in 2nd, and Guinness was in 4th. So Olivier and Guinness seemed to stay fairly close legacy wise, despite Olivier getting much more acclaim in theor liefetimes.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 19, 2018 14:26:59 GMT
I mentioned Guinness in the opening post but it's nice to see mention of his George Smiley indeed. Yes you did. Just looked back and saw it. Bit of a throwaway mention, but you're forgiven I do disagree with your initial statement somewhat that Guinness wasn't equivalent to Olivier stature wise. Olivier was more decorated in their lifetime, but Guinness Guardian obituary in 2000 when he died was pretty succint; "The best known and loved English actor of the 20th century, Sir Alec Guinnesss who has died age 86"
That statement may be arguable, but it's a very bold claim indeed from one of the major British newspapers. Gieguld and Richardson have not really endured that much in public memory despite being considered stage titans comparable to Olivier in their era, because they never had the film careers to match. The likes of James Mason may have have indelible film careers, but lack of stage acclaim kept them from being comparable to Olivier. At the end of it, Guinness was Olivier's only true British peer, across all mediums. He's still a name widely admired today in the British acting fraternity (maybe moreso than Olivier, whose style can be considered a bit more divisive). Olivier may still have slightly more prestige today (particularly since his estate had the clever notion to allow Britain's main stage awards to name themselves after him), but Guinness today is pretty much up there. The Old Vic Theatre did a Poll Of the Greatest British Actor in 2005. Anthony Hopkins won it, Olivier was in 2nd, and Guinness was in 4th. So Olivier and Guinness seemed to stay fairly close legacy wise, despite Olivier getting much more acclaim in theor liefetimes. Guinness having Star Wars probably is what propelled him to that "best known and loved" label. Olivier didn't really have anything quite on that level in terms of pop culture resonance (even with his Shakespeare works). Ironically, the role that Guinness probably loathed more than any other of his is the one that cemented him as the most beloved actor of his generation.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 19, 2018 17:28:58 GMT
Yes you did. Just looked back and saw it. Bit of a throwaway mention, but you're forgiven I do disagree with your initial statement somewhat that Guinness wasn't equivalent to Olivier stature wise. Olivier was more decorated in their lifetime, but Guinness Guardian obituary in 2000 when he died was pretty succint; "The best known and loved English actor of the 20th century, Sir Alec Guinnesss who has died age 86"
That statement may be arguable, but it's a very bold claim indeed from one of the major British newspapers. Gieguld and Richardson have not really endured that much in public memory despite being considered stage titans comparable to Olivier in their era, because they never had the film careers to match. The likes of James Mason may have have indelible film careers, but lack of stage acclaim kept them from being comparable to Olivier. At the end of it, Guinness was Olivier's only true British peer, across all mediums. He's still a name widely admired today in the British acting fraternity (maybe moreso than Olivier, whose style can be considered a bit more divisive). Olivier may still have slightly more prestige today (particularly since his estate had the clever notion to allow Britain's main stage awards to name themselves after him), but Guinness today is pretty much up there. The Old Vic Theatre did a Poll Of the Greatest British Actor in 2005. Anthony Hopkins won it, Olivier was in 2nd, and Guinness was in 4th. So Olivier and Guinness seemed to stay fairly close legacy wise, despite Olivier getting much more acclaim in theor liefetimes. Guinness having Star Wars probably is what propelled him to that "best known and loved" label. Olivier didn't really have anything quite on that level in terms of pop culture resonance (even with his Shakespeare works). Ironically, the role that Guinness probably loathed more than any other of his is the one that cemented him as the most beloved actor of his generation. This is very true. Things could have been very different if Olivier had gotten Brando's role in The Godfather. And Olivier was Francis Ford Coppola's other choice for the role of Vito Corleone. Technically, Olivier could have pulled it off to an extent, but it's hard to imagine without Brando. But that would have been the pop culture film to keep Olivier relevant to modern audiences, beyond being a legendary theatrical name that people keep having to be told was one the greatest. I think more than anything, the British theatrical establishment (who have a powerful presence in Public Relations) help keep Olivier's name somewhat relevant, more than any passion from the general public. I've seen a few interviews where even Day-Lewis seemed kind of dismissive of Olivier's acting technique, claiming he didn't "get it" and could have been a better actor if he understood the benefits of method acting. Though other times, I've seen Day-Lewis cite Olivier as an inspiration, so he seems to have a Jekyll and Hyde attitude towards the man.
|
|