|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 27, 2018 18:12:59 GMT
In a new New York Times interview/profile, Del Toro is asked about his reputation for playing bad or villainous characters, and if that might be percieved as a chain around his neck an an actor. Del Toro's response is to name 3 all time iconic actors; "Humphrey Bogart, Al Pacino and Denzel Washington also played a lot of bad guys", Del Toro said.www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/movies/benicio-del-toro-sicario-day-of-the-soldado.html
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 27, 2018 18:21:35 GMT
What are your thoughts on Bogart? We've discussed the "brand" that actors like Washington and Pacino cultivated over their careers, and Bogart was no exception, and it's a fascinating discussion to have in terms of the classic era, where actors were more inclined to have their on-screen personae and rarely broke from them.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 27, 2018 18:30:24 GMT
What are your thoughts on Bogart? We've discussed the "brand" that actors like Washington and Pacino cultivated over their careers, and Bogart was no exception, and it's a fascinating discussion to have in terms of the classic era, where actors were more inclined to have their on-screen personae and rarely broke from them. I like him. Compared to both Pacino and Washington, I think he's pretty limited, but masterful within his limits. Yes he kept to his screen persona as was the general rule at the time, but so did someone like James Cagney, and you could see far more flexibility and range in Cagney's performances. But yeah, Bogart was great, but in a more limited fashion. No one would expect him to have the ability to go out and play King Lear on Broadway (which Pacino might have been able to do at one point, and Washington almost certainly will). Pauline Kael once compared Bogart to Paul Newman in that regard. Neither could play the classics, but within their more limited range, they could hit notes few others could.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 27, 2018 18:36:38 GMT
What are your thoughts on Bogart? We've discussed the "brand" that actors like Washington and Pacino cultivated over their careers, and Bogart was no exception, and it's a fascinating discussion to have in terms of the classic era, where actors were more inclined to have their on-screen personae and rarely broke from them. I like him. Compared to both Pacino and Washington, I think he's pretty limited, but masterful within his limits. Yes he kept to his screen persona as was the general rule at the time, but so did someone like James Cagney, and you could see far more flexibility and range in Cagney's performances. But yeah, Bogart was great, but in a more limited fashion. No one would expect him to have the ability to go out and play King Lear on Broadway (which Pacino might have been able to do at one point, and Washington almost certainly will). Pauline Kael once compared Bogart to Paul Newman in that regard. Neither could play the classics, but within their more limited range, they could hit notes few others could. You tellin' me you wouldn't wanna see Bogie do Lear? "Nothing will come of nothing: speak again, shweetheart!" On a serious note, I do think Bogart came off as deceptively limited, but there was a lot of range within his "schtick" that he could play around with. The way he plays up Dobbs's avarice and paranoia in Treasure of the Sierra Madre is fantastic, and yet it's through subtle nuance rather than grand, sweeping gestures the way a lot of actors of that time (and even today) would do. The guy comes out with three wins for me (not bad for an actor who many derided as a "one-trick pony"), and I think his iconic status is fully deserved and he ought to get more focus and attention for what he was able to do. Yeah, Cagney probably stakes a strong claim of being the most versatile actor of his era. He could do Shakespeare (and well!), he could play tough brutes and gentle souls . . . plus he could dance with the best of 'em.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 27, 2018 18:36:50 GMT
Also, might or might not be a controversial opinion, but in his own way, I think Bogart in The Treasure of The Sierra Madre is as good as Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will be Blood.
Also thought he was great in The Caine Mutiny. Wouldn't have given him the Oscar for The African Queen considering the stupendous competition that year (Brando, Douglas, Clift!!), but it was a very good performance, worthy of a nod.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 27, 2018 18:38:35 GMT
Also, might or might not be a controversial opinion, but in his own way, I think Bogart in The Treasure of The Sierra Madre is as good as Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will be Blood. Also thought he was great in The Caine Mutiny. Wouldn't have given him the Oscar for The African Queen considering the stupendous competition that year (Brando, Douglas, Clift!!), but it was a good performance. I wouldn't rate him quite that highly (DDL is my #1 of all time in any category), but the antecedents of Daniel Plainview are found in Dobbs, and Treasure is a necessary double-feature with Blood to really appreciate both. Still, Bogart's my win for it and it's my favorite performance of his. He's excellent in The Caine Mutiny as well. I don't think he should've won in '51 either, given the competition, but he's so good in it that I got no real complaints because on its own merits, it's a worthy performance.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 27, 2018 18:43:37 GMT
Del Toro is an interesting and fine actor and his Oscar winning role is a great one, although he started to lessen as soon as he won it and he became less distinctive - that was a great role and performance and immediately thereafter his future looked different than what it ended up as.
Washington and Pacino are in some ways virtually interchangeable as acting archetypes - they are fascinating to compare and contrast and for a younger actor they have many aspects that are desirable and not just villains - many similarities, even down to small things like awards they've won and what motivates them to do what they do - sometimes you can see them interviewed and think "Pacino would have said that" or "I could see Washington saying that" - they have crucial differences of course too but they have far more similarities than any of the big name actors one to one - they are in many ways linked and intertwined.
Pacino himself at times was in effect "doing Bogart" (referenced as dialog in Carlito's Way even) and I'm a rather huge Bogart fan and use him as an example of what I like though Nicholson is closer to him than either Pacino or Washington imo, though he was famously shortchanged by Brando as "no great shakes as an actor, but an effective performer"
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Jun 27, 2018 19:30:58 GMT
Sounds like he was just naming some great actors that have also played a lot of bad guys...
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 27, 2018 20:02:01 GMT
Sounds like he was just naming some great actors that have also played a lot of bad guys... Yes. That's pretty much what I said. But he's also effectively saying, if it's good enough for these 3 legends, it's good enough for me. He's making a comparison from them to him as a talented actor not limited by playing villains. It's not rocket science, and neither a point worth arguing over.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 27, 2018 21:23:30 GMT
Also thought he was great in The Caine Mutiny. Wouldn't have given him the Oscar for The African Queen considering the stupendous competition that year (Brando, Douglas, Clift!!), but it was a very good performance, worthy of a nod. I actually rank Bogart higher in the 50s than just about anybody - I mean not as the best actor of the decade - but what an actor should strive for as he ages - most people consider him a star of the 40s but his 50s were very deep in his acting work and deep with classic film too - In A Lonely Place (his best imo), The African Queen, The Caine Mutiny, Sabrina, The Barefoot Contessa, The Desperate Hours, The Harder They Fall (all through '56). I mean lots of people had a great 50s - Douglas and Holden (not a huge fan of either but they had some great stuff and classic films) and Bogart's 50s showed some fascinatingly different colors in his palette - there's great humor, paranoia, rage, alcoholism, sadness all across his work - it's one of those things with actors - sometimes to see how good they really were examine them in their "non-peak" period (Bogart in the 50s rather than 40s, Brando in the 60s rather than 50s etc).
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jun 27, 2018 21:27:16 GMT
I personally don't think he's as good as Pacino/Denzel, but it's not like it's a laughable comparison. And it's not like Bogart was an all time great dramatic actor or anything, just one of the greatest stars.
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Jun 27, 2018 23:01:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 30, 2018 0:43:04 GMT
Wow, Del Toro really regards Denzel as a major influence in his career. Another interview from The Guardian: It has been a deliberate choice – and one informed by Denzel Washington. “Denzel is one of those actors who has had to deal with all those stereotypes,” Del Toro says. “It’s an interesting journey. Me being Latino, I’ve looked at his career [to] see how to navigate and take those stereotypes and flip them upside down.”
www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jun/29/people-talk-about-sicario-as-if-its-a-documentary-benicio-del-toro-on-his-new-thrillerIt's pretty insane how many major actors, young and old, consider Washington to be the guy to look up to. He's got to be the most influential actor of his generation. Sean Penn used to get this type of shout-out in the 90's and early 2000's, but it's slowed down a lot as his hype died. Daniel Day-Lewis and Gary Oldman get a lot of hero worship talk to this day, but it's interesting to see seasoned Actors actors like Del Toro and Liam Neeson(who seem close to his generation, or in Neeson's case, older) talk about basing their career choices on what they think Washington might do.
|
|
|
Post by Christ_Ian_Bale on Jun 30, 2018 0:47:09 GMT
Wow, Del Toro really regards Denzel as a major influence. Another interview from The Guardian: It has been a deliberate choice – and one informed by Denzel Washington. “Denzel is one of those actors who has had to deal with all those stereotypes,” Del Toro says. “It’s an interesting journey. Me being Latino, I’ve looked at his career [to] see how to navigate and take those stereotypes and flip them upside down.”
www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jun/29/people-talk-about-sicario-as-if-its-a-documentary-benicio-del-toro-on-his-new-thrillerIt's pretty insane how many major actors, young and old, consider Washington to be the guy to look up to. He flipped those stereotypes upside down, but did he flip em for real?
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 30, 2018 0:59:18 GMT
Also thought he was great in The Caine Mutiny. Wouldn't have given him the Oscar for The African Queen considering the stupendous competition that year (Brando, Douglas, Clift!!), but it was a very good performance, worthy of a nod. I actually rank Bogart higher in the 50s than just about anybody - I mean not as the best actor of the decade - but what an actor should strive for as he ages - most people consider him a star of the 40s but his 50s were very deep in his acting work and deep with classic film too - In A Lonely Place (his best imo), The African Queen, The Caine Mutiny, Sabrina, The Barefoot Contessa, The Desperate Hours, The Harder They Fall (all through '56). I mean lots of people had a great 50s - Douglas and Holden (not a huge fan of either but they had some great stuff and classic films) and Bogart's 50s showed some fascinatingly different colors in his palette - there's great humor, paranoia, rage, alcoholism, sadness all across his work - it's one of those things with actors - sometimes to see how good they really were examine them in their "non-peak" period (Bogart in the 50s rather than 40s, Brando in the 60s rather than 50s etc). I actually agree with this to an extent. Bogart's work deepened and became richer as he aged. The issue from me is that as good as he was in the 50's, there were people operating at their peaks with much broader skillsets (like Douglas and Brando. Not to mention Alec Guinness). I put Bogart more in a category with James Stewart, another guy who was considered to have had his peak in the previous decade, but did some of his richest work in the 50's (Anthony Mann Westens, his films with Hitchcock). But the advent of the method created a whole new paradigm shift in film acting. Douglas (and to a much lesser extent Lancaster) was the only one not "officially" of the method school, who could keep up with that level of intensity. But frankly, from what I've read about his acting approach, Douglas was pretty much a method actor in application, he just never went through the Actors Studio teachings,
|
|