|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 22, 2019 11:56:26 GMT
Sort of like Best Actor Across All 3 Mediums but in a different way and here you'd have people who wouldn't show up in that thread at all because you have to work in movies enough to have a footprint across the board.
Who is the actor or actress that you find has had the greatest impact across material - now usually I don't give much credit to actors who are just "in" great movies - big deal............ but in this case that's part of the equation as long as it's their movie and they aren't 10th in the cast, etc. and of course if they are also great in that material it's a plus (hence "Best" in the subject line).
For example, Nicholson in The Shining (horror), The Departed (crime), period pieces (Reds), many straight dramas, notable comedies, comic book film, film noir - you associate him films in all ........... for actresses I'm predictably going to Streep but who is a more creative pick? I think this clearly favors actors in the last 50 years not hemmed in by studio requirements obviously.
This is tricky because, well a lot of people in Nicholson's case really dislike him in say The Shining and The Departed but they're major films so again it isn't the actor's work specifically it's just "being in a major film representative of a genre" and those fit. In general if you work with great directors..........big plus........
What sayeth thee MA'ers........?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2019 14:35:10 GMT
How about Judy Davis? She has excelled in almost every genre I can think of.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 22, 2019 15:09:22 GMT
Julianne Moore is one of these too - fearless across genres - will go into Sci-Fi, Horror, Action at the drop of a hat .......
Davis is a good one, in general these are people who don't care about their "brand" (loathe that expression) although weirdly Nicholson was a brand himself.
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Feb 22, 2019 15:11:12 GMT
Your question essentially boils down to "Who is the most versatile A-lister?", and in that sense I agree that Nicholson is a good choice for males. From that generation, De Niro also toiled and excelled in virtually every genre.
I'd have to say James Stewart; his career arc is the most fascinating to me among all classic-era actors. He went from an affable, "aw-shucks" Capra leading man in the 40s to a scrappy, psychologically-tormented anti-hero in the 50s. The only genre he actively avoided was the war genre, after his honorable service as a bomber pilot in WWII.
For actress I'd probably go with Ingrid Bergman and Sigourney Weaver.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Feb 22, 2019 15:14:42 GMT
I know she's out of fashion, but I think Jennifer Lawrence qualifies. She's known for comedies (like SLP), but also dramas (Winter's Bone and her earlier work), YA sci-fi (The Hunger Games), thrillers (mother!), super-hero flicks (X-Men)... She's one actress that's very successful and you can't really label her under one specific genre, as she's had hits across the board with many kinds of movies.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso1 on Feb 22, 2019 15:25:27 GMT
Weird. I don't think this is possible. Because people are cast 4 le physique du rol. An actor could excell in drama, comedy, noir, historical, western and sci fiction, but according their appareance.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 22, 2019 16:23:16 GMT
Sigourney Weaver.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Feb 22, 2019 16:26:37 GMT
Theron deserves a mention here. She's done a really varied set of roles, through a lot of genres over the years.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 22, 2019 18:08:56 GMT
I always thought Kirk Douglas was an iconic figure in several genres for his era. Film Noir (Out Of The Past, Ace In The Hole), Westerns (Gunfight At The OK Corral), historical epics (Spartacus, The Vikings), War Films (Paths Of Glory), Sports Films (Champion)
Don't think he ever had an iconic role in a comedy (though he was very much the comedic relief in 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea), but of all the actors of his era, I think he made more of a mark in more genres than almost anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 22, 2019 18:17:53 GMT
Today, Nicole Kidman has to be the reigning champ. Made a mark in horror (The Others), Comedy (Paddington), black comedy (To Die For), Film Noir/Action (Destroyer), Superhero/Action (Aquaman), historical biopic (The Hours), Western + War (Australia, Cold Mountain), Musical (Moulin Rouge).
She's probably only lacking a notable science fiction film or show (we'll ignore The Invasion remake as it's not very good). It's a strange hole for her, as in theory, she'd fit into sci-fi easily (I'd like to see her in a gender reversed role that Michael Fassebender played in Ridley Scott's Prometheus films)
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Feb 22, 2019 18:25:07 GMT
The first actor that popped in my mind was Udo Kier.
|
|
cherry68
Based
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lavender.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lavender.png)
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 4,090
Likes: 2,352
|
Post by cherry68 on Feb 22, 2019 18:41:00 GMT
Gary Oldman. He played every kind of character in so many genres.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 22, 2019 18:56:43 GMT
The first actor that popped in my mind was Udo Kier. Udo Kier is such an interesting presence in films and an interesting mention! - I love how he is used in Suspiria '77 as a slightly off center Dr. - in any other film that's a thankless role or an artificially showy role but he so weirdly fits in perfectly. You can say that about almost anything he's even in regardless of what he's playing - I'm thinking about Cigarette Burns and the hair on my forearms stood up
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Feb 22, 2019 19:10:33 GMT
A good pick would be Javier Bardem.
Comedies and romance (Jamon Jamon, Boca a Boca), drama and biographies (second skin, before night falls, sea inside, loving Pablo), period movies (Goya's ghosts and Love in the Time of Cholera), action and fantasy flicks like Skyfall, Pirates of the Caribbean (ok, not based on comic books but close), No country (something between adventure, drama and black comedy), thriller and horror (Mother! and playing Frankenstein's monster in a couple of years), probably being in a sci-fi flick (Dune), crime movies (the counselor), something like a fantasy drama (biutiful)...
It's almost every film genre in there and he's been really good in everything.
Heck, he's been really good in almost everything he's ever done.
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Feb 22, 2019 19:15:05 GMT
The first actor that popped in my mind was Udo Kier. Udo Kier is such an interesting presence in films and an interesting mention! - I love how he is used in Suspiria '77 as a slightly off center Dr. - in any other film that's a thankless role or an artificially showy role but he so weirdly fits in perfectly. You can say that about almost anything he's even in regardless of what he's playing - I'm thinking about Cigarette Burns and the hair on my forearms stood up He's an actor that, even though he is mostly used in supporting and background roles, he makes every moment of his screen presence count. And has done so in a wide variety of genres. I actually saw him recently in the film Iron Sky (an absurd sci-fi comedy) and he was absolutely hilarious as the crazy nazi general. By far the highlight of that film.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 22, 2019 19:20:28 GMT
A good pick would be Javier Bardem. Comedies and romance (Jamon Jamon, Boca a Boca), drama and biographies (second skin, before night falls, sea inside, loving Pablo), period movies (Goya's ghosts and Love in the Time of Cholera), action and fantasy flicks like Skyfall, Pirates of the Caribbean (ok, not based on comic books but close), No country (something between adventure, drama and black comedy), thriller and horror (Mother! and playing Frankenstein's monster in a couple of years), probably being in a sci-fi flick (Dune), crime movies (the counselor), something like a fantasy drama (biutiful)... It's almost every film genre in there and he's been really good in everything. Heck, he's been really good in almost everything he's ever done. Bardem's been nominated for like 3 Razzies in the last 5 years (including Mother and Pirates Of the Caribbean). Trying a lot of things and nailing them in the eyes of most are not the same thing. Going by his recent track record, Bardem is trying a lot of different things and failing at them. He's obviously an actor with range, but he's had some awful luck and awful choices recently
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 22, 2019 19:31:15 GMT
A good pick would be Javier Bardem. Comedies and romance (Jamon Jamon, Boca a Boca), drama and biographies (second skin, before night falls, sea inside, loving Pablo), period movies (Goya's ghosts and Love in the Time of Cholera), action and fantasy flicks like Skyfall, Pirates of the Caribbean (ok, not based on comic books but close), No country (something between adventure, drama and black comedy), thriller and horror (Mother! and playing Frankenstein's monster in a couple of years), probably being in a sci-fi flick (Dune), crime movies (the counselor), something like a fantasy drama (biutiful)... It's almost every film genre in there and he's been really good in everything. Heck, he's been really good in almost everything he's ever done. Bardem's been nominated for like 3 Razzies in the last 5 years (including Mother and Pirates Of the Caribbean). Trying a lot of things and nailing them in the eyes of most are not the same thing. Going by his recent track record, Bardem is trying a lot of different things and failing at them. He's obviously an actor with range, but he's had some awful luck and awful choices recently That Razzie stuff is Fake News though. He's about as good on Mother as anybody could be - who would you even cast if not him - that's a BS award .......... and he's often acting in his 2nd language come on, there is not one actor I can name that is more gifted than him in world cinema - not one - he can stand with anyone working - he's in that elite league. I'll agree he makes some weak choices but I'd really wish we'd stop equating that "consistency lie" - and it is a lie - with great acting or more to the point with the topic of this thread - I mean his 5 Goya Awards are across genres alone and that's not even what I think of when I think of him.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 22, 2019 19:58:06 GMT
Bardem's been nominated for like 3 Razzies in the last 5 years (including Mother and Pirates Of the Caribbean). Trying a lot of things and nailing them in the eyes of most are not the same thing. Going by his recent track record, Bardem is trying a lot of different things and failing at them. He's obviously an actor with range, but he's had some awful luck and awful choices recently That Razzie stuff is Fake News though. He's about as good on Mother as anybody could be - who would you even cast if not him - that's a BS award .......... and he's often acting in his 2nd language come on, there is not one actor I can name that is more gifted than him in world cinema - not one - he can stand with anyone working - he's in that elite league. I'll agree he makes some weak choices but I'd really wish we'd stop equating that "consistency lie" - and it is a lie - with great acting or more to the point with the topic of this thread - I mean his 5 Goya Awards are across genres alone and that's not even what I think of when I think of him. Lots of people thought he was bad in Mother. Lots of people thought he was bad in The Counselor. And Pirates. He's not had a homerun performance in about 7 years (Skyfall). In a what-have-you-done-for-me lately business, he hasn't done much. I loathe this excuse making, particularly for male actors who were once considered top-of-the-heap. Bardem doesn't need excuses made for him. Critics always want to love him. That they've been struggling too for the past few years is on him. His great career fortune is the sheer dearth of major hispanic actors that can carry a film, so he can keep failing and keep getting more opportunities to hit a homerun again (which I'm sure he eventually will). Aside from Oscar Isaac, Benicio Del Toro and Antonio Banderas, it's slim pickings out there. His career would probably be as screwed as Sean Penn's if he had more competition to deal with.The consistency lie is no lie. Careers often die without it. He's a gifted actor, but as with Penn, you've always overrated him. There are several greater.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 22, 2019 20:04:49 GMT
That Razzie stuff is Fake News though. He's about as good on Mother as anybody could be - who would you even cast if not him - that's a BS award .......... and he's often acting in his 2nd language come on, there is not one actor I can name that is more gifted than him in world cinema - not one - he can stand with anyone working - he's in that elite league. I'll agree he makes some weak choices but I'd really wish we'd stop equating that "consistency lie" - and it is a lie - with great acting or more to the point with the topic of this thread - I mean his 5 Goya Awards are across genres alone and that's not even what I think of when I think of him. The Razzies are trash, no mistake (and the fact that they nominated Nicolas Cage for Snowden despite him being legitimately good in it is merely one of the myriad reasons why we should never take them seriously; they'll pick on any A-lister who makes themselves an easy target), and I do adore Javier Bardem . . . but there's a few things I'd point out here. 1. Regardless of what one thinks of mother! and whether or not it works (I personally don't think it does), Bardem doesn't really have a whole lot of chemistry with Lawrence, which is key to their characters and hurts the film overall. 2. The Goyas, like most awards, are very much biased towards their hometown folks, and Bardem is the top Spanish actor in the world right now in terms of career and acclaim, so him winning so many awards isn't all that impressive when you take that into account. 3. I know you like to argue against consistency as being a requisite for a great actor, but it very much is an essential ingredient in judging their catalogue and assessing their skill sets. I can commend an actor for being ambitious enough to try different things, but if they fail more often than they succeed, do they get points for trying? I don't really think so. Nor do I think that an actor can claim to have an ironclad legacy just because they start out strong; guys like De Niro, Hoffman and Pacino don't get passes for slumming it in their latter days just because they did so well at the start. Bardem has done well for himself, but even his most devoted fans have to admit that the mid-2010s were a bit of a rough patch for him. Not irredeemably so, and I have high hopes for the Cortes project.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 22, 2019 20:12:30 GMT
That Razzie stuff is Fake News though. He's about as good on Mother as anybody could be - who would you even cast if not him - that's a BS award .......... and he's often acting in his 2nd language come on, there is not one actor I can name that is more gifted than him in world cinema - not one - he can stand with anyone working - he's in that elite league. I'll agree he makes some weak choices but I'd really wish we'd stop equating that "consistency lie" - and it is a lie - with great acting or more to the point with the topic of this thread - I mean his 5 Goya Awards are across genres alone and that's not even what I think of when I think of him. The Razzies are trash, no mistake (and the fact that they nominated Nicolas Cage for Snowden despite him being legitimately good in it is merely one of the myriad reasons why we should never take them seriously; they'll pick on any A-lister who makes themselves an easy target), and I do adore Javier Bardem . . . but there's a few things I'd point out here. 1. Regardless of what one thinks of mother! and whether or not it works (I personally don't think it does), Bardem doesn't really have a whole lot of chemistry with Lawrence, which is key to their characters and hurts the film overall. 2. The Goyas, like most awards, are very much biased towards their hometown folks, and Bardem is the top Spanish actor in the world right now in terms of career and acclaim, so him winning so many awards isn't all that impressive when you take that into account. 3. I know you like to argue against consistency as being a requisite for a great actor, but it very much is an essential ingredient in judging their catalogue and assessing their skill sets. I can commend an actor for being ambitious enough to try different things, but if they fail more often than they succeed, do they get points for trying? I don't really think so. Nor do I think that an actor can claim to have an ironclad legacy just because they start out strong; guys like De Niro, Hoffman and Pacino don't get passes for slumming it in their latter days just because they did so well at the start. Bardem has done well for himself, but even his most devoted fans have to admit that the mid-2010s were a bit of a rough patch for him. Not irredeemably so, and I have high hopes for the Cortes project. Fair and honest assesment. Like I said, Bardem's career saving grace is the sheer lack of hispanic actors considered able to carry a project. So his many failures don't damage him as much as they might a white (or even black) actor. So when it comes to projects requiring a hispanic lead, he's still pretty much always in the top 2-3 for casting lists. The industry really needs to invest in finding more top tier hispanic leading men
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 22, 2019 20:13:35 GMT
That's absurd to me - I don't know what this means "a lot of people thought he was bad in Mother" - a lot of people think Robert De Niro sucks in Cape Fear too but I'd have to count Cape Fear as a success in that genre. I loathe the subtle shade you're throwing at him and that your taking part in here - ie equating Razzie with legitimate awards and Oscar Isaac, Del Toro, and Banderas as his equivalents - how the fnck is Oscar Isaac or Banderas his equivalent - and ghettoizing him/them as mere hispanic actors. His career is just fine, he's great in Everybody Knows - by your own rule of thumb "a lot of people thought he was really good there". Sean Penn's career is just fine too even if its over - think about that - he has two Best Actor awards - only Tom Hanks has that in his generation. It's nonsense to think actors have to keep doing it over and over and over - just as ludicrous as to suppose bands should do it - "hey the Ramones revolutionized Rock music but gee they sucked in 1987!" - those are not equivalents - the important part of that sentence is the first part and critics loving Bardem isn't the point of the thread at all anyway, you just saw the name Bardem and for some reason saw red but it doesn't pertain to his success across genres - you're off point. You're all over the place here bringing up Banderas, Penn, etc. anyway but Bardem was just major in his last major film so none of it even applies. ![:no:](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/ws8IERHQU8teyJNEZjNm.gif)
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 22, 2019 20:18:42 GMT
Fair and honest assesment. Like I said, Bardem's career saving grace is the sheer lack of hispanic actors considered able to carry a project. So his many failures don't damage him as much as they might a white (or even black) actor. So when it comes to projects requiring a hispanic lead, he's still pretty much always in the top 2-3 for casting lists. The industry really needs to invest in finding more top tier hispanic leading men I don't know if I'd say "many" failures, and I do think that Bardem shouldn't get marked down specifically if others involved in those projects aren't. For example, Pitt doesn't get knocked around for The Counselor, even though they have more or less the same screentime. Regardless of what one feels about The Counselor (I appreciate it despite its flaws, but I understand why others don't), I think Bardem probably takes more guff for it because he won an Oscar for his last McCarthy outing (and probably because his character is more outsized than the others). But yeah, he seems to always be in the conversation whenever there's a dark and handsome Latin character to be cast. Seems Pedro Pascal is making a run at trying to get into that group, though.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 22, 2019 20:22:22 GMT
That Razzie stuff is Fake News though. He's about as good on Mother as anybody could be - who would you even cast if not him - that's a BS award .......... and he's often acting in his 2nd language come on, there is not one actor I can name that is more gifted than him in world cinema - not one - he can stand with anyone working - he's in that elite league. I'll agree he makes some weak choices but I'd really wish we'd stop equating that "consistency lie" - and it is a lie - with great acting or more to the point with the topic of this thread - I mean his 5 Goya Awards are across genres alone and that's not even what I think of when I think of him. The Razzies are trash, no mistake (and the fact that they nominated Nicolas Cage for Snowden despite him being legitimately good in it is merely one of the myriad reasons why we should never take them seriously; they'll pick on any A-lister who makes themselves an easy target), and I do adore Javier Bardem . . . but there's a few things I'd point out here. 1. Regardless of what one thinks of mother! and whether or not it works (I personally don't think it does), Bardem doesn't really have a whole lot of chemistry with Lawrence, which is key to their characters and hurts the film overall. 2. The Goyas, like most awards, are very much biased towards their hometown folks, and Bardem is the top Spanish actor in the world right now in terms of career and acclaim, so him winning so many awards isn't all that impressive when you take that into account. 3. I know you like to argue against consistency as being a requisite for a great actor, but it very much is an essential ingredient in judging their catalogue and assessing their skill sets. I can commend an actor for being ambitious enough to try different things, but if they fail more often than they succeed, do they get points for trying? I don't really think so. Nor do I think that an actor can claim to have an ironclad legacy just because they start out strong; guys like De Niro, Hoffman and Pacino don't get passes for slumming it in their latter days just because they did so well at the start. Bardem has done well for himself, but even his most devoted fans have to admit that the mid-2010s were a bit of a rough patch for him. Not irredeemably so, and I have high hopes for the Cortes project. Agree with much of this, but not all. I'll grant you the BS of 5 Goya's if I can get the the BS of any Razzies in comparison. Deal. As for consistency - well, you don't much like Pacino's middle period and in fact like it less than his later days ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/KAUR26Rad8w62aSMorQH.gif) - I agree consistency matters but not how its used here or as much as you value it - that belongs in a Javier Bardem - Thoughts? thread anyway - not a thread across genres As for his chemistry with Lawrence - I dunno man, that's part on her too..........and who else are you going to cast as a writer/poet "type" named "Him" - who could even play it - I'm not a fan of the movie but you know the potential cast list is limited and the potential success in the film is limited too.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 22, 2019 20:26:50 GMT
Agree with much of this, but not all. I'll grant you the BS of 5 Goya's if I can get the the BS of any Razzies in comparison. Deal. As for consistency - well, you don't much like Pacino's middle period and in fact like it less than his later days ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/KAUR26Rad8w62aSMorQH.gif) - I agree consistency matters but not how its used here or as much as you value it - that belongs in a Javier Bardem - Thoughts? thread anyway - not a thread across genres As for his chemistry with Lawrence - I dunno man, that's part on her too..........and who else are you going to cast as a writer/poet "type" named "Him" - who could even play it - I'm not a fan of the movie but you know the potential cast list is limited and the potential success in the film is limited too. Oh don't worry, I knock Lawrence for it, too. The whole damn ensemble is rickety, which is a shame, because individually every single person in the film is a pretty strong talent. But I blame Aronofsky most of all because he's just not a good director. Consistency can sometimes be mistaken for laziness (i.e. Liam Neeson), but it can also be a mark of excellence if an actor can take any role given and more or less nail it, and a lot of times they can make it look so easy that it comes off as lazy. Now, with that said, I do appreciate it when an actor tries to do something new and not rely on their old bag of tricks, because when something like that works, it can open up many new avenues. But when it doesn't, you have to acknowledge that it didn't work. Does that make them a lesser actor than someone who is more consistent? Not necessarily. It depends on the individual projects, and the performances therein. But personally speaking, I'm much more critical if an actor is phoning it in and hits the minimum requirements of a role more than someone who swings for the fences and falls short.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Feb 22, 2019 20:43:04 GMT
Jack Lemmon, always.
|
|