|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 1, 2019 22:28:28 GMT
People were kind of stunned when Matthew McConaughey, a previously dismissable, charasmatic B-list makeweight actor with a mostly unremarkable career since the 90's (bright spots like A Time To Kill and Dazed And Confused notwithstanding) started displaying a previously unseen depth and gravitas in a remarkable run that started in 2012 with The Lincoln Lawyer, and encompassed 9 more films and/or TV shows up until 2014 (including Bernie, Mud, True Detective, Dallas Buyers Club, Interstellar, Magic Mike, Killer Joe). Some projects got more acclaim than others. In some he was the lead, in other a virtual cameo (Wolf Of Wall Street). But McConaughey was considered a highlight or the highlight in these projects.
This run proved to be in unsustainable, and McConaughey has since come crashing back to earth. Since 2014, McConaughey has struggled to recapture that form and zeitgeist and project selection that had people for a brief period considering if he might be the best currently working screen actor. Films like The Sea Of Trees, The Dark Tower and this year's Serenity have made the "McConnaissace" seem like decades ago, not just years. But while he couldn't sustain beyond that two-year window, the sustained quality and quantity of that period can never be taken from him or diminished.
Nicole Kidman is a slightly different case. Unlike McConaughey before his run, Kidman had already previously experienced being one of the most respected actors in the world. She'd never really lost that respect among her peers, but her tabloid infamy, box office woes and some shaky and inconsistent project selection had seen the perception of her almost shift to "yesterdays news". Great actress, great career, but clearly her best days were already behind her.
Then 2016 kicked off a run that I'd argue has already surpassed McConaughey' s, because it has yet to end, 9 projects in (including 2 TV shows). Lion, Boy Erased, Destroyer, Aquaman, Big Little Lies, The Beguiled, Killing Of A Sacred Deer....even The Upside, which critics dismissed, but turned out to be a huge crowdpleaser. Kidman is a lead in some, supporting in others, but again almost always singled out as the highlight or a highlight. It's a resurgence few saw coming, and in my estimation has likely enshrined her as the world's greatest living actress (I guess rivalled by usual suspects like Streep, and far surpassing the esteemed British Dames)
But back to the topic at hand. When we always talked about Brando's 50's run or Pacino's 70's streak, I like most, did find them impressive. But looking at what McConaughey and Kidman managed in 2-3 year sustained runs, I feel like the game has evolved significantly
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 1, 2019 22:54:54 GMT
I may be in the minority here but acting runs and how we perceive acting has changed too and McConaughey especially is an off one. I found him underrated prior to that run (Lone Star and Frailty!) and while I did like him in much of McConaissance found some of that stuff overrated - not really impressed with Magic Mike and Killer Joe and The Paperboy. Like he did some good work, some great (DBC) and some overrated and people were overpraising or catching on to it late since it was a real career turnaround.
Kidman's run is strong too but actresses get held to a different standard and some of her biggest critics emerged in that run at times too - I myself am unimpressed by some of it (Destroyer) - but she's hard to deny as a major presence. No one argues MM as one of the world's best actors even though he had a hot streak, but Kidman would be talked about in top 10 terms.
The Brando/Pacino streaks come from a different time when movies meant more and that's where it's weird - like their 6 each = 15 each now in a way. That's one of the reasons they will always rank so high because they have that sort of iconic thing and their eras and if you want a couple good comparison points think of this:
Harvey Keitel may be the very best US actor of the 90s (check his filmography) and to me he obliterates MM but never had the pop culture zeitgeist that enabled the McConaissance to be trendy in the first place. There's something to that, that cheapens it, it's like web culture, meme-culture vs. movie culture - they intersect but not all the way or directly.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 1, 2019 22:58:44 GMT
I'd argue that the McConaissance actually, truly, started in 2008 with Tropic Thunder. But yeah, that streak right up until Interstellar is one of the greatest runs any actor has ever had, especially in covering different media as well as genres. Obviously, the streak had to end sometime and McConaughey's post-2014 output has come off lacking in comparison, but honestly, I think he still has a shitload of goodwill to burn. (And for what it's worth, I liked him in Sea of Trees and Free State of Jones).
Kidman's recent run is very strong indeed, but nothing she's done in that time with the possible exception of Big Little Lies has hit the cultural zeitgeist the way McConaughey's did. McConaughey's was a career and image game-changer; it completely revamped people's image of him, so that now people don't think of him as the swaggering hunk with the southern drawl but are instead looking at him through the prism of Rust Cohle and Ron Woodroof. Maybe it's because no one expected it from McConaughey (though they should have if they paid attention to Frailty), whereas Kidman has always had that auteur cache even as people tried to hit her with the movie star/tabloid fodder label.
Still, this is not to take anything away from Kidman, who is doing some very fine work as she reaches her middle years, and only really seems to be ramping it up. But for my money, what McConaughey did was so singular and shocking that it wound up spawning a new phrase: "McConaissance." And whenever someone makes a comeback, that label always is revived and restructured around that actor's name in hopes that they can replicate that success. Brando and Pacino blazed onto the scene like hot rockets, but I'm trying to think of an actor who completely and utterly revamped and restructured their image so thoroughly and became a critical force. Even Joaquin Phoenix prior to his sabbatical was still a lauded actor, whereas McConaughey had, what, an MTV Best Kiss award?
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 1, 2019 23:21:03 GMT
I'd argue that the McConaissance actually, truly, started in 2008 with Tropic Thunder. But yeah, that streak right up until Interstellar is one of the greatest runs any actor has ever had, especially in covering different media as well as genres. Obviously, the streak had to end sometime and McConaughey's post-2014 output has come off lacking in comparison, but honestly, I think he still has a shitload of goodwill to burn. (And for what it's worth, I liked him in Sea of Trees and Free State of Jones). Kidman's recent run is very strong indeed, but nothing she's done in that time with the possible exception of Big Little Lies has hit the cultural zeitgeist the way McConaughey's did. McConaughey's was a career and image game-changer; it completely revamped people's image of him, so that now people don't think of him as the swaggering hunk with the southern drawl but are instead looking at him through the prism of Rust Cohle and Ron Woodroof. Maybe it's because no one expected it from McConaughey (though they should have if they paid attention to Frailty), whereas Kidman has always had that auteur cache even as people tried to hit her with the movie star/tabloid fodder label. Still, this is not to take anything away from Kidman, who is doing some very fine work as she reaches her middle years, and only really seems to be ramping it up. But for my money, what McConaughey did was so singular and shocking that it wound up spawning a new phrase: "McConaissance." And whenever someone makes a comeback, that label always is revived and restructured around that actor's name in hopes that they can replicate that success. Brando and Pacino blazed onto the scene like hot rockets, but I'm trying to think of an actor who completely and utterly revamped and restructured their image so thoroughly and became a critical force. Even Joaquin Phoenix prior to his sabbatical was still a lauded actor, whereas McConaughey had, what, an MTV Best Kiss award? Well I kind of made that point myself to be fair. Unlike with McConaughey, no one is shocked that Kidman is a truly great actress with range and depth for days, so her run cannot deliver the same shock factor as the drawling Texan turning out to have serious chops. But the fact that her run has made a 50 + year old actress one of the hottest and most in demand actresses in the world, when most actresses her age see their careers winding down (hers is about the same age Glenn Close and Jessica Lange started losing every concievable role to Mery Streep and those ladies never fully recovered). This run is a career game changer for Kidman....like I said, she was close to yesterday's news in an insanely competitive middle aged actress job market. Now she'll almost certainly be in that rare category of older actresses who will always get worthwhile job offers till they retire or die. She may not be the lead character in Aquaman, but she is the heart of the movie and also it's best reviewed perfromance. And at 1Billion dollars + at the worldwide box office (grossing more than any Batman film), I'd call that zeitgeist hit (even Lion to an extent.That was the little movie that could. A 12 millon budgeted film making nearly 150 million worldwide is pretty special). But Aquaman for Kidman is almost the equivalent of Brando's second notable run in the 70's, where he was hired to class up and add gravitas to a commercial blockbuster like Superman. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 1, 2019 23:47:00 GMT
I agree that in spite of a rough couple of years, McConaughey still has goodwill leftover from that special run of his. He's struggling to exploit it though. As good as he can be, I think his achilles heel may be an inability or unwillingness to fully eliminate his Texan characteristics or manner in characterisation. It limits the roles he can do or is offered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2019 0:38:10 GMT
I think 70s Jane Fonda and 80s Meryl Streep are the two gold standards for English-speaking female actors... I love Kidman, but I don't see her performances or her projects as consistent in quality as those two streaks.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 2, 2019 1:03:22 GMT
I think 70s Jane Fonda and 80s Meryl Streep are the two gold standards for English-speaking female actors... I love Kidman, but I don't see her performances or her projects as consistent in quality as those two streaks. I put Destroyer and Big Little Lies (performance-wise) up with anything Streep and Fonda did in those decades (and I adore Fonda in Klute, and respect Streep's consistency). I think it's more about how Kidman (and McConaughey) worked their streaks into such a condensed time frame that make their streaks special. Essentially about 9 major projects and/or performances squeezed into 2 years. When we talk about Fonda or Streep's "streaks", I feel like we are usually referring to their body of work over a 10 year period. A whole decade I guess opinion on projects and performances are variable, but less so the time frames |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2019 1:11:19 GMT
pupdurcs - I still think Birth is Kidman's best performance, and yes, it stands with Fonda's and Streep's best. I suppose I wish Kidman were more selective with her projects... Why was she in Just Go with It and The Upside? She certainly doesn't need the money.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 2, 2019 1:28:17 GMT
I think 70s Jane Fonda and 80s Meryl Streep are the two gold standards for English-speaking female actors... I love Kidman, but I don't see her performances or her projects as consistent in quality as those two streaks. 70s Jane Fonda is a very strange and landmark example I may have mentioned to you before @tyler where she can stand opposite a male and hold her own or more - Redford, Caan, Bridges, Caine, Voight, Lemmon, Sutherland, later De Niro - like that became the pattern that Streep in a different way would then replicate. But Fonda was almost like the equivalent of a cinematic boxer in a way - we've cast this man, we need a woman who can stand up to him - what females can we get? She occupied a singular niche after the emergence of the American actress as new force in the late 50s/early 60s - I think its hard for people to look at her career and get it really. Like I said today Michelle Williams is the best actress (American) of her generation right now but she has lots and lots of rivals, so did Streep at one time, so does Kidman .........or whomever..........Fonda kind of sorta didn't except Dunaway briefly and not really - and it was a long run like that she had. |
|
|
|
Post by Sharbs on Mar 2, 2019 1:43:05 GMT
The Kidman streak in the early 00's > current Kidman streak
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 2, 2019 1:46:34 GMT
I think 70s Jane Fonda and 80s Meryl Streep are the two gold standards for English-speaking female actors... I love Kidman, but I don't see her performances or her projects as consistent in quality as those two streaks. 70s Jane Fonda is a very strange and landmark example I may have mentioned to you before @tyler where she can stand opposite a male and hold her own or more - Redford, Caan, Bridges, Caine, Voight, Lemmon, Sutherland, later De Niro - like that became the pattern that Streep in a different way would then replicate. But Fonda was almost like the equivalent of a cinematic boxer in a way - we've cast this man, we need a woman who can stand up to him - what females can we get? Not sure I agree with this. Was there ever a period where the were a lack of female actresses of enough skill or presence to hold their own with male counterparts? Not sure about that. Gena Rowlands, Faye Dunaway, Vanessa Redgrave, Ellen Burstyn, Julie Christie... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2019 1:55:59 GMT
70s Jane Fonda is a very strange and landmark example I may have mentioned to you before @tyler where she can stand opposite a male and hold her own or more - Redford, Caan, Bridges, Caine, Voight, Lemmon, Sutherland, later De Niro - like that became the pattern that Streep in a different way would then replicate. But Fonda was almost like the equivalent of a cinematic boxer in a way - we've cast this man, we need a woman who can stand up to him - what females can we get? Not sure I agree with this. Was there ever a period where the were a lack of female actresses of enough skill or presence to hold their own with male counterparts? Not sure about that. Gena Rowlands, Faye Dunaway, Vanessa Redgrave, Ellen Burstyn, Julie Christie... I think pacinoyes is referring to that era where the most popular female actors were the likes of Ava Gardner, Rita Hayworth, and Lana Turner - "stars" celebrated for their beauty and not much else (though all of these women had talent that was never invested in nor explored). There were notable exceptions in this era (Davis, K. Hepburn, Taylor), but they're the exception, not the rule. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 2, 2019 2:07:42 GMT
70s Jane Fonda is a very strange and landmark example I may have mentioned to you before @tyler where she can stand opposite a male and hold her own or more - Redford, Caan, Bridges, Caine, Voight, Lemmon, Sutherland, later De Niro - like that became the pattern that Streep in a different way would then replicate. But Fonda was almost like the equivalent of a cinematic boxer in a way - we've cast this man, we need a woman who can stand up to him - what females can we get? Not sure I agree with this. Was there ever a period where the were a lack of female actresses of enough skill or presence to hold their own with male counterparts? Not sure about that. Gena Rowlands, Faye Dunaway, Vanessa Redgrave, Ellen Burstyn, Julie Christie... Well in Fonda's case I meant more Americans but Redgrave and Christie - love em - you especially could never picture as an equal to manly guys like those I listed for Fonda - Rowlands could but wasn't a big star (which matters here) and Burstyn (love her too, that's 4 for 4!) was if anything the precursor to an indie-Queen - she's just not equipped to star opposite Redford and big time male actors in big films. This goes back to something I've said a lot - for a long time there were male actors and female stars - for US females they don't get a Brando/Clift/Dean - they get a smaller scale version. The star came first for females with some exceptions (Davis, Hepburn, etc) but in general you didn't get attractive women who raised the stakes opposite male actors until the late 50s/early 60s at all - Wood, Remick, Page, Laurie, and Fonda .........who eventually takes that and runs wild with it. The sex kitten, the star, the fine actress, the family name.........in all those respects she was unheard of and so was her ability to sustain it for so long. It is very cool to watch actresses in this time - like Laurie in The Hustler is a very complex, very troubled, very actorish role, a few years prior she'd have looked more bland, more supportive, more one-note - she'd be expected to be one-note too. Fascinating era and performances by actresses there imo. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 2, 2019 2:07:48 GMT
Not sure I agree with this. Was there ever a period where the were a lack of female actresses of enough skill or presence to hold their own with male counterparts? Not sure about that. Gena Rowlands, Faye Dunaway, Vanessa Redgrave, Ellen Burstyn, Julie Christie... I think pacinoyes is referring to that era where the most popular female actors were the likes of Ava Gardner, Rita Hayworth, and Lana Turner - "stars" celebrated for their beauty and not much else (though all of these women had talent that was never invested in nor explored). There were notable exceptions in this era (Davis, K. Hepburn, Taylor), but they're the exception, not the rule. I think that's a bit unfair to that era. In every era, there's always been a mixed bag of popular actresses celebrated mostly for looks, and those who were also major talents as well. In addition to those you mentioned, you had Barbara Stanwyck, Ingrid Bergman, Judy Garland, Maureen O' Hara, Jean Simmons, Deborah Kerr and more. Simmons and Kerr were like the go-to actresses to star opposite every major male lead of the 50's era. Brando, Lancaster, Mitchum, Douglas, Brynner and so many more |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 2, 2019 2:13:44 GMT
Not sure I agree with this. Was there ever a period where the were a lack of female actresses of enough skill or presence to hold their own with male counterparts? Not sure about that. Gena Rowlands, Faye Dunaway, Vanessa Redgrave, Ellen Burstyn, Julie Christie... Well in Fonda's case I meant more Americans but Redgrave and Christie - love em - you especially could never picture as an equal to manly guys like those I listed for Fonda - Rowlands could but wasn't a big star (which matters here) and Burstyn (love her too, that's 4 for 4!) was if anything the precursor to an indie-Queen - she's just not equipped to star opposite Redford and big time male actors in big films. This goes back to something I've said a lot - for a long time there were male actors and female stars - for US females they don't get a Brando/Clift/Dean - they get a smaller scale version. The star came first for females with some exceptions (Davis, Hepburn, etc) but in general you didn't get attractive women who raised the stakes opposite male actors until the late 50s/early 60s at all - Wood, Remick, Page, Laurie, and Fonda .........who eventually takes that and runs wild with it. The sex kitten, the star, the fine actress, the family name.........in all those respects she was unheard of and so was her ability to sustain it for so long. It is very cool to watch actresses in this time - like Laurie in The Hustler is a very complex, very troubled, very actorish role, a few years prior she'd have looked more bland, more supportive, more one-note - she'd be expected to be one-note too. Fascinating era and performances by actresses there imo. Ok, I kind of see the point you are making now. Can't say I neccesarily disagree |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 2, 2019 2:28:54 GMT
. Brando and Pacino blazed onto the scene like hot rockets, but I'm trying to think of an actor who completely and utterly revamped and restructured their image so thoroughly and became a critical force. Even Joaquin Phoenix prior to his sabbatical was still a lauded actor, whereas McConaughey had, what, an MTV Best Kiss award? I've been thinking about this since you brought it up. We may have to go all the way back to William Holden to see a similar case of a long established star suddenly morphing from a complete lightweight in the eyes of many, into a major critical force. He was a major star for at least a decade before Sunset Boulevard, but I don't think he was that highly regarded as an actor before it. Afterwards, he was generally seen as an actor to be highly respected. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 2, 2019 2:38:09 GMT
. Brando and Pacino blazed onto the scene like hot rockets, but I'm trying to think of an actor who completely and utterly revamped and restructured their image so thoroughly and became a critical force. Even Joaquin Phoenix prior to his sabbatical was still a lauded actor, whereas McConaughey had, what, an MTV Best Kiss award? I've been thinking about this since you brought it up. We may have to go all the way back to William Holden to see a similar case of a long established star suddenly morphing from a complete lightweight in the eyes of many, into a major critical force. He was a major star for at least a decade before Sunset Boulevard, but I don't think he was that highly regarded as an actor before it. Afterwards, he was generally seen as an actor to be highly respected. I don’t know if I’d quite qualify Holden for that. I look at his career boost with Sunset Boulevard more as someone finally “breaking into the big time” rather than completely reinventing himself. He just lucked out in landing a major part in a major movie, and people started taking him more seriously afterward. Someone like McConaughey had made his bones and become an A-list box office draw, and then he decided to actively rebuff the image he'd cultivated for almost two decades. Holden didn't really do that. He just got more high-profile. I can think of two actors who in their latter-day careers completely changed the face of their careers as McConaughey did, and who did it so thoroughly that you almost forget what came first. One is Leslie Nielsen, who was known and respected as a reliable dramatic actor, but after Airplane!, he became the go-to ultra-straitlaced man in spoofs. Obviously not a whole lot of critical adulation there, but I daresay it made him much more iconic than if he hadn't. And then there's Liam Neeson, who has recalibrated himself as an aging action star to the point that a lot of people forget he actually has acting chops. I don't think either quite did it with the critical momentum of McConaughey, but those are the only ones that come to mind who I think actively pursued changes in their careers and got them, rather than hitting "lucky breaks" outside of their control and taking advantage of them. But I'm sure there are others. |
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Mar 2, 2019 2:41:08 GMT
Pssh. These two have nothing on Tom Cruise. |
|
|
|
Post by notacrook on Mar 2, 2019 12:05:45 GMT
The Kidman streak in the early 00's > current Kidman streak While this current Kidman streak is truly remarkable, I have to agree that her stretch from around Eyes Wide Shut to Birth was something else entirely - almost certainly the strongest run of any actress, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 2, 2019 16:36:51 GMT
The Kidman streak in the early 00's > current Kidman streak While this current Kidman streak is truly remarkable, I have to agree that her stretch from around Eyes Wide Shut to Birth was something else entirely - almost certainly the strongest run of any actress, in my opinion. It was a magnificent period in her career, but I don't think it ended with Birth. It ended with Cold Mountain (which I'm not a huge fan of). Because after that came The Stepford Wives remake, which was emblematic of the disasterous commercial studio projects that ended Kidman's run at the top ( Bewitched, Invasion and Golden Compass were among the others). The reason I rate this current run more, is because it's has more projects in a much more condensed time frame, and there are no truly damaging failures within the streak, like Stepford Wives or The Human Stain. |
|
