|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 22, 2019 11:11:56 GMT
Happy Birthday to an American original - the star of my favorite film (Chinatown), the greatest "personality based" actor ever and one of the GOAT overall, he maybe retired too soon but his filmography in unfnckwithable and everyone who says he didn't stretch much has to admit he did stretch just enough to shut you up (The Passenger, Ironweed, About Schmidt) ........I personally don't think any male will catch his 12 acting nominations (maybe DiCaprio) .......he's given me a lot of definitive, uniquely his own movie moments.
You can make a lot of arguments about "best" American actor of the 70s........but Nicholson was the actor who captured the spirit of the 70s and 70s films (in the same way that Altman is that for directors).
I'll let others pick his top 5 but I always like to mention his most underrated to me The King Of Marvin Gardens where he could play either role and suggests a very uniquely American kind of sadness that you rarely saw in movies (and don't see at all anymore). The character of David Stabler "dies" by never living and he lives through a fluke.........his brother Jason (Bruce Dern) dies through a fluke and lives on as a ghost in a way......one of the few movies that actually is about the American Dream, deferred.
|
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Apr 22, 2019 11:14:28 GMT
I just love the guy!!! In the top 5 of the greatest living actors, top 3 Americans.
I can't stop hoping he makes one last film. I know he's (unofficially) retired but you never know... He can't just go away with something like How Do You Know..
Cookoo, Chinatown, About Schmidt and As Good as it Gets are the first I can think of. Later on I may come back with some more.
|
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Apr 22, 2019 11:17:57 GMT
I also add The Pledge (one ofy favorites) and Terms of Endearment.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 22, 2019 13:01:16 GMT
Great movie star actor!
I think he was kind of one of the first film actors that I really adored in my youth, when I didn't have very many other points of comparison. I started sort of growing out of him when I realised just how much he coasted on his charm and persona. To me, he's pretty much on the same level of someone like Samuel L Jackson, but with 11 more Oscar nominations (hmmm...maybe a thread on Sam Jackson being underrated is in order). But y'know, good on him for turning charisma for days and a strong screen presence into being the Mayor of Hollywood for a couple of decades. George Clooney could never!
Also, while his likability and social mobility in Hollywood circles undoubtedly played a part in him holding the acting record for male actors in terms of Academy Award nominations, one cannot take that accomplishment away from him. While it looks pretty likely that Denzel Washington can match or break that record, for now Jack is the all-time champ and it speaks to his legacy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2019 13:13:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 22, 2019 13:27:23 GMT
Jack worshipped Brando, but Brando could be a real asshole to Jack, particularly during the period they worked together during The Missouri Breaks.
Brando was actually giving interviews denigrating Jack's talent...saying he wasn't "as good as DeNiro" and that Jack was like a pianist that only played one note.
I mean Brando was correct to an an extent, but it was still a dick-ish thing to do to a younger actor who worshipped him. They became closer as Brando aged, and Jack never stopped seeking his approval for some reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2019 13:54:41 GMT
Jack worshipped Brando, but Brando could be a real asshole to Jack, particularly during the period they worked together during The Missouri Breaks. Brando was actually giving interviews denigrating Jack's talent...saying he wasn't "as good as DeNiro" and that Jack was like a pianist that only played one note. I mean Brando was correct to an an extent, but it was still a dick-ish thing to do to a younger actor who worshipped him. They became closer as Brando aged, and Jack never stopped seeking his approval for some reason. Indeed he even said as:
For me, the toughest experience I ever had with Brando came during making The Missouri Breaks together. We talked about doing many projects together over the years, but that’s the only time it actually came together. I think Marlon probably had more fun shooting The Missouri Breaks than any movie he did. He liked all the guys in the movie. We were out in Montana. He lived out on the ranch where the movie was shot. He liked being close to nature. He was in his element.
I, on the other hand, was a mess. Somewhere deep in my subconscious was always this idea: “One day you’re going to be working with Marlon Brando, and you better be ready, Jack.”
It started off fine. In our first scene, he’s a killer, and I’m hiding out from him. Whatever feelings I had of being intimidated seemed to fit this scene. Then one night after that I made a big mistake: I watched some of Brando’s dailies. This was a scene where he’s sitting there with John McLiam. I watched nine or ten takes of this same scene. Each take was an art film in itself. I sat there stunned by the variety, the depth, the amount of silent articulation of what a scene meant. It was all there. It was one of the wildest things I ever put my eyes on.
The next day I woke up completely destroyed. The full catastrophe of it hit me overnight: “Holy fuck, who do you think you are, Jack? You’re in a movie with Marlon Brando!” I was totally annihilated by him. I thought, “What if they decide to hang me for being so crazy as to think I could be in the same country with this guy, much less in the same movie?” Our director, Arthur Penn, really had to nurse me back to health just to get me to continue on with the picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 22, 2019 13:54:53 GMT
You really in some ways can't imagine how peerless Nicholson is in terms of awards - which are of course BS but still he's amazing if you are an Oscar numbers guy.
Nicholson's 12 nominations are 2 more than Olivier who had a real unfair advantage over everyone else (that no longer exists) with Shakespeare roles (which comprise 4 of Olivier's 10!) - Nicholson then surpasses all the rest of the runner-ups by at least 25% (Newman/Tracy), then surpasses Lemmon/Washington/Pacino/Brando/O'Toole by 33%. Pacino maybe has 1 more in him (if that) ........Washington you would think is closer and has a couple but I'm not so sure - very few people the age he's at now or older get multiple nods at all (Duvall got 2, Plummer got 3, it can happen ......can Washington get 4 MORE to tie him? Can Bridges get 5 MORE to tie him?).......and with the eventual change that's coming in the Academy and streaming services it may be tougher to get nods for everyone post-2020 - that rule change splits the field when it comes . Not saying it can't be done but it hasn't judging by historical precedent ...........Nicholson himself stopped early - no one saw him really stopping at 12, you never know.
Very rarely do you even get acting over the age of 70 celebrated anyway too - ie the Dern Nebraska performance......
Then there's DiCaprio who has 5 but nods don't fall out that easy even in your 40s......especially after a win - Nicholson got 4 nominations in the 70s and 4 in the 80s.......that's kind of the pace you have to stay on - think about that!......it's basically Ovechkin chasing Gretzky for career goals - can he do it......sure......will he do it.......maybe .....but the pace is the problem - he can't get hurt, he can't have an off year (or in the case of an actor......not die also).......but when Gretzky did it his game was at the peak and yes Nicholson winning with all those nods was BS but it was at films peak too .......it almost makes his legendary status that much more mythical in a way.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 22, 2019 14:05:14 GMT
I don't know if I can ever see DiCaprio lap Nicholson for acting nominations if only because he's in his mid-forties and only has five (well, six counting producer nods, and for the benefit of discussion we won't count them against Jack), and as much as he's in demand, he also takes a lot of breaks. It's interesting -- I think he's a weird fusion of Nicholson (movie-star wattage and boundless charisma, even if he's somewhat limited in versatility) and Day-Lewis (project selectivity, has the best auteurs chasing him). That's good to generate acclaim, but in terms of reaping heaps of nominations, it hinders you. As much as people talk about Pacino's fabled streak in the '70s, they often overlook that Nicholson was right there with him.
Washington, on the other hand, is entering that stage in his career where he's probably going to start looking towards juicy supporting roles to flesh out his canon, and he's built up so much goodwill for a third win that it's almost inevitable he'll get it, and it helps that he looks younger than he is. Getting double digits is a rare cockeyed feat in itself, but Denzel just scored back-to-back nominations, one of which for a critical misfire. As long as he keeps working and maintains his consistency, there's no real reason why he wouldn't match Nicholson . . . unless he does win soon, and goes through an awards dry spell like he did after he won Best Actor in 2001, where it took him eleven years to get nominated again.
As for Nicholson, he has (had?) a great one-of-a-kind screen presence that can't be duplicated, but unfortunately, he also became quite self-parodic after a while, and what was once exciting became ridiculous in the end. When he was at his apex, he couldn't be touched, but there's a lot of dreck there as well. Wish he had seen fit to retire with About Schmidt, rather than subject us to whatever the fuck he was doing in The Departed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2019 14:08:18 GMT
He could make few more roles after 2010. I know as he was forgeting lines but whats the problem? They can easily write him big notes. Or he could try direction again. Now he just wasted years with golf like Pesci. I dont wanna sound harsh but his talent is mesmerizing! Happy birthday JACK! Comeback from "retirement (barbeque and ballgames) like Jane Fonda and show us once more how uncompromising actor you are. I wish you work Aronofsky or Villeneuve.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 22, 2019 14:26:58 GMT
unless he does win soon, and goes through an awards dry spell like he did after he won Best Actor in 2001, where it took him eleven years to get nominated again.
See, that's why I laid it out in numeric terms in my previous post - that type of actor you are - or how good you are - doesn't really have much to do with it - it's much more trends it seems to me..........Washington talks about ending on stage and he has shown no indication of doing supporting roles except that we think it's a good idea and he looks good but his time is limited, his windows are closing too - not closed of course but closing, that streaming thing is going to be a big deal with acting nods ...... if I told you that Jack Nicholson would not be nominated for working with Scorsese for the first time in the Best Picture of the Year winner.....regardless of what you think of the performance you might think that's odd. I did, I don't love the performance either but I expected the nod......the way people end up with nods in their career is a headscratcher - if I had to bet I'd bet on Jack tbh, ask Jack Lemmon who went from being the favorite to winning a 3rd in '92 to not being nodded to passing away (eventually).
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 22, 2019 14:37:23 GMT
unless he does win soon, and goes through an awards dry spell like he did after he won Best Actor in 2001, where it took him eleven years to get nominated again.See, that's why I laid it out in numeric terms in my previous post - that type of actor you are - or how good you are - doesn't really have much to do with it - it's much more trends it seems to me..........Washington talks about ending on stage and he has shown no indication of doing supporting roles except that we think it's a good idea and he looks good but his time is limited, his windows are closing too - not closed of course but closing, that streaming thing is going to be a big deal with acting nods ...... if I told you that Jack Nicholson would not be nominated for working with Scorsese for the first time in the Best Picture of the Year winner.....regardless of what you think of the performance you might think that's odd. I did, I don't love the performance either but I expected the nod......the way people end up with nods in there career is a headscratcher - if I had to bet I'd bet on Jack tbh, ask Jack Lemmon who went from being the favorite to winning a 3rd in '92 to not being nodded to passing away (eventually). Yeah, I'd agree with much of this, in that sometimes the Academy decides they're done with you after nominating you over and over in a short amount of time. Unless you're Meryl Streep, that is. But someone will eventually catch up to Nicholson, and with Washington having scored three nominations in the span of five years in this decade, he's probably the closest bet to do it, not just because he's got eight already but because he's reached that point in his career where if he has anything remotely baity, he's got enough goodwill built in that the nomination is always a potential. I think Nicholson missing that Departed nod was shocking in the moment because of his stature in the business and the popularity of the film, but in hindsight, maybe not so much. Wahlberg was the real breakout of the film and it was extremely rare to see double nominees in Supporting Actor at that time. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 22, 2019 14:49:59 GMT
I don't know if I can ever see DiCaprio lap Nicholson for acting nominations if only because he's in his mid-forties and only has five (well, six counting producer nods, and for the benefit of discussion we won't count them against Jack), and as much as he's in demand, he also takes a lot of breaks. It's interesting -- I think he's a weird fusion of Nicholson (movie-star wattage and boundless charisma, even if he's somewhat limited in versatility) and Day-Lewis (project selectivity, has the best auteurs chasing him). That's good to generate acclaim, but in terms of reaping heaps of nominations, it hinders you. As much as people talk about Pacino's fabled streak in the '70s, they often overlook that Nicholson was right there with him. Washington, on the other hand, is entering that stage in his career where he's probably going to start looking towards juicy supporting roles to flesh out his canon, and he's built up so much goodwill for a third win that it's almost inevitable he'll get it, and it helps that he looks younger than he is. Getting double digits is a rare cockeyed feat in itself, but Denzel just scored back-to-back nominations, one of which for a critical misfire. As long as he keeps working and maintains his consistency, there's no real reason why he wouldn't match Nicholson . . . unless he does win soon, and goes through an awards dry spell like he did after he won Best Actor in 2001, where it took him eleven years to get nominated again. As for Nicholson, he has (had?) a great one-of-a-kind screen presence that can't be duplicated, but unfortunately, he also became quite self-parodic after a while, and what was once exciting became ridiculous in the end. When he was at his apex, he couldn't be touched, but there's a lot of dreck there as well. Wish he had seen fit to retire with About Schmidt, rather than subject us to whatever the fuck he was doing in The Departed. Thing about Washington's "dry spell" is....he wasn't even trying to get nominated. That's why his ability to convert nods is so impressive.The guy was in full on thriller/Tony Scott/Entertain my audience mode for almost the whole 2000's. Yeah he was great in things like Man On Fire and Inside Man, but Oscar isn't going near those films and he knew it. American Gangster was his one serious bid for an Oscar season acting nomination in that whole spell, and he probably wasn't that far off from getting it. He's literally a major threat to be nominated any time he has a meaty role with anything with a whiff of "prestige" about it. If he amps up the "prestige" projects in upcoming years (And judging by Coen and Macbeth, that looks likely), he'll pass Nicholson's record with time to spare. Bridges is not in the hunt for Jack's record. He's had 7 nominations in 46 years and is almost 70. Washington has had 8 in 30 years, is younger and looks younger. Bridges just never converted at a rate realistic enough to challenge, wheras Washington is right in the sweet spot. Washington should really be on 9 nominations, as he lost an easy nod for Philidelphia because his agent Ed Limato did not want him campaigned as a supporting actor. I agree with you assesment on DiCaprio. To add to that, he gets snubbed a lot, considering most of his output is aimed towards Oscar season ( you think Denzel misses for Django Unchained or J.Edgar? I don't). No active male actor seems to convert with less effort than Washington. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 22, 2019 14:57:40 GMT
Yes and it weirdly affected him I think too - like he wanted that Departed nod - let's face it that and Batman were nods that seemed pre-ordained for him with ones he actually got in his career ...........and then he does The Bucket List, Ledger wins the Oscar for his role, and then does How Do You Know and leaves ............and I think in both those he saw himself for the first time as less "special" like things started to turn in a way he didn't like which for anybody else is just the way it is no big deal/aging sucks - but he took his ball and went home in a way (I have no proof of that, just a theory I have).
Jack is a very interesting case if you really assess him - he's fun to study in a way - he has 3 Oscars and none of his 70s peers will ever match that (unless DeNiro gets it?), but this year Pacino may take another role away from him like Ledger did (maybe, maybe not) late in his life, for the first time ever his star dimmed with time as it does for everyone of course but never had for him ........I think aging has really taken a toll on him or at least there's a "fictional" narrative where that makes sense if you had to guess and he's so mysterious all you can do is concoct fictional narratives.
I hope the true narrative isn't like that of course and is much happier for him in his life whether he comes back or not. To be honest, I still think of him coming back, I half expected when Coppola dropped hints of getting Megalopolis up and running to hear his name there even.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 22, 2019 15:03:49 GMT
Thing about Washington's "dry spell" is....he wasn't even trying to get nominated. That's why his ability to convert nods is so impressive.The guy was in full on thriller/Tony Scott/Entertain my audience mode for almost the whole 2000's. Yeah he was great in things like Man On Fire and Inside Man, but Oscar isn't going near those films and he knew it. American Gangster was his one serious bid for an Oscar season acting nomination in that whole spell, and he probably wasn't that far off from getting it. He's literally a major threat to be nominated any time he has a meaty role with anything with a whiff of "prestige" about it. If he amps up the "prestige" projects in upcoming years (And judging by Coen and Macbeth, that looks likely), he'll pass Nicholson's record with time to spare. Bridges is not in the hunt for Jack's record. He's had 7 nominations in 46 years and is almost 70. Washington has had 8 in 30 years, is younger and looks younger. Bridges just never converted at a rate realodric enough to challenge, wheras Washington is right in the sweet spot. Washington should really be on 9 nominations, as he lost an easy nod for Philidelphia because his agent Ed Limato did not want him campaigned as a supporting actor. I agree with you assesment on DiCaprio. To add to that, he gets snubbed a lot, considering most of his output is aimed towards Oscar season ( you think Denzel misses for Django Unchained or J.Edgar? I don't). No active male actor seems to convert with less effort than Washington. I don't know if I'd say Denzel missed an "easy nod" for Philadelphia, as that lineup was rock-solid. Postlethwaite was the only one who didn't have precursors on his side, but his film over-performed with nominations and I can't see the film doing that well without also getting him in. Malkovich had probably the least Oscar-friendly role of the five, but it was a flashy villain part they like in this category. DiCaprio and Fiennes were no-brainers, and Jones won. Washington would've had his work cut out to get into that lofty group. I think DiCaprio missed for Django because his character was just too unlikable and horrific for the Academy to swallow. They go for villains all the time, but there's usually some kind of charming hook to them (Lecter, the Joker, Hans Landa). But Calvin Candie is so thoroughly repugnant that I think the Academy wouldn't have gone for him even if Waltz (a much more prominent character who steals the entire movie) hadn't been in the running. I also have a theory that when Weinstein said "Leave Leo to me" at Cannes that year, that backfired hilariously, as it was around that time when Weinstein's influence started to wane. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 22, 2019 15:09:28 GMT
Yes and it weirdly affected him I think too - like he wanted that Departed nod - let's face it that and Batman were nods that seemed pre-ordained for him with ones he actually got in his career ...........and then he does The Bucket List, Ledger wins the Oscar for his role, and then does How Do You Know and leaves ............and I think in both those he saw himself for the first time as less "special" like things started to turn in a way he didn't like which for anybody else is just the way it is no big deal/aging sucks - but he took his ball and went home in a way (I have no proof of that, just a theory I have). Jack is a very interesting case if you really assess him - he's fun to study in a way - he has 3 Oscars and none of his 70s peers will ever match that (unless DeNiro gets it?), but this year Pacino may take another role away from him like Ledger did (maybe, maybe not) late in his life, for the first time ever his star dimmed with time as it does for everyone of course but never had for him ........I think aging has really taken a toll on him or at least there's a "fictional" narrative where that makes sense if you had to guess and he's so mysterious all you can do is concoct fictional narratives. I hope the true narrative isn't like that of course and is much happier for him in his life whether he comes back or not. To be honest, I still think of him coming back, I half expected when Coppola dropped hints of getting Megalopolis up and running to hear his name there even. Oh, The Bucket List. I remember when people had that on their predictions at the start of the 2007 Oscar season.  I just think that Nicholson's brand of acting relies so heavily on his physical vitality. He doesn't need to be an intense, raw, muscular figure, but as Jack aged, that devilish ne'er-do-well slyness started to age with him. In his middle age it was charming. As he got older, there was something almost sweet about it. But now, in his eighties? It'd be just . . . well, sad. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 22, 2019 15:15:11 GMT
Thing about Washington's "dry spell" is....he wasn't even trying to get nominated. That's why his ability to convert nods is so impressive.The guy was in full on thriller/Tony Scott/Entertain my audience mode for almost the whole 2000's. Yeah he was great in things like Man On Fire and Inside Man, but Oscar isn't going near those films and he knew it. American Gangster was his one serious bid for an Oscar season acting nomination in that whole spell, and he probably wasn't that far off from getting it. He's literally a major threat to be nominated any time he has a meaty role with anything with a whiff of "prestige" about it. If he amps up the "prestige" projects in upcoming years (And judging by Coen and Macbeth, that looks likely), he'll pass Nicholson's record with time to spare. Bridges is not in the hunt for Jack's record. He's had 7 nominations in 46 years and is almost 70. Washington has had 8 in 30 years, is younger and looks younger. Bridges just never converted at a rate realodric enough to challenge, wheras Washington is right in the sweet spot. Washington should really be on 9 nominations, as he lost an easy nod for Philidelphia because his agent Ed Limato did not want him campaigned as a supporting actor. I agree with you assesment on DiCaprio. To add to that, he gets snubbed a lot, considering most of his output is aimed towards Oscar season ( you think Denzel misses for Django Unchained or J.Edgar? I don't). No active male actor seems to convert with less effort than Washington. I don't know if I'd say Denzel missed an "easy nod" for Philadelphia, as that lineup was rock-solid. Postlethwaite was the only one who didn't have precursors on his side, but his film over-performed with nominations and I can't see the film doing that well without also getting him in. Malkovich had probably the least Oscar-friendly role of the five, but it was a flashy villain part they like in this category. DiCaprio and Fiennes were no-brainers, and Jones won. Washington would've had his work cut out to get into that lofty group. Well, we'll never know, because as soon as Washington and his agent declined to be campaigned as a supporting actor, he didn't show up in most places. And that seemed to be by design, so the industry wouldn't bracket him as a "supporting actor", just as he was building steam as a leading man. Who is to say that if Washington fully embraced the "supporting" narrative, he doesn't do a Mahershala Ali or Christoph Waltz and repeat win in the supporting category. It all came down to Washington and his agent not wanting him to be perceived as a supporting actor (in hindsight, a smart career move). His status with the Academy by then and the fact that the film was so baity, was probably enough to displace someone in the race (maybe even eventual winner Jones), but it's all pointless speculation now. I think he did all of the eventual 5 nominees a favor by throwing his hat out of the ring. |
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Apr 22, 2019 16:30:45 GMT
Brando was actually giving interviews denigrating Jack's talent...saying he wasn't "as good as DeNiro" and that Jack was like a pianist that only played one note. Of course he hadn't played alongside De Niro back then. I assume he said that because of Bobby's portrayal of Vito Corleone. |
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Apr 22, 2019 16:36:20 GMT
Very rarely do you even get acting over the age of 70 celebrated anyway too - ie the Dern Nebraska performance...... If I remember well, Jack was Payne's first choice for Dern's part in Nebrasca but he rejected the role. Same with Robert Downey's the Judge. Both his replacements (Dern and Duvall) won an Oscar nom. I think Jack really considered doing the Toni Erdmann remake for the last couple of years but he dropped out. And for what it's worth, I liked the Bucket List. Silly movie but enjoyable thank you very much. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 22, 2019 16:49:57 GMT
Brando was actually giving interviews denigrating Jack's talent...saying he wasn't "as good as DeNiro" and that Jack was like a pianist that only played one note. Of course he hadn't played alongside De Niro back then. I assume he said that because of Bobby's portrayal of Vito Corleone. ..........and of course great actors don't make for great critics and they may not have had the flavor of ice cream he wanted that day . I love Marlon Brando but it's wrong (to me) about Jack and it's a dickish thing to say too and the interviewer should have said "Please clarify that ......."how do you mean that? etc and they never do that - they only want the bitchy quote .......what I say all the time and FINALLY I can legitimately say it here again in this thread and can't be accused of trying to "derail the thread" this time   - never, ever, ever trust anything an actor says about another actor without insight (missing from Brando's quote) - you can like it or dislike it - that's fine - but it means less than 0 - great actors diss great (or greater) actors all the time - it can deal with ego, bitterness, careerism, a billion things.........great actors overpraise other actors all the time, it can deal with ego, a way to throw shade at another actor they don't even mention, can deal with vanity, ass-kissing, a billion things. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 22, 2019 19:32:33 GMT
Well Francis Ford Coppola did say Jack (and Pacino and DeNiro) had gotten lazy a while back and weren't doing anything interesting. As Coppola isn't an actor (those lying demons), I guess at least he can be trusted.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 22, 2019 19:44:02 GMT
Well Francis Ford Coppola did say Jack (and Pacino and DeNiro) had gotten lazy a while back and weren't doing anything interesting. As Coppola isn't an actor (those lying demons), I guess at least he can be trusted. On the contrary, Coppola could be trusted talking about other directors because directors don't see themselves as stars so there's no ulterior motive (but directors well they see actors as stars or lying demons, you got it!). The best example of this is John Schlesinger who on a clip easily available on Youtube gets the the "you should try acting" story from Olivier to Hoffman completely wrong (at least from Hoffman's explanation which makes far more sense), then insults Olivier, then praises himself because Olivier sought out direction from him and he wasn't afraid to give it to him like other directors who are afraid of stars. Um........... It's all BS really except filmmakers speaking on filmmakers like I said - there you actually hear something interesting. You posted Brando saying something bad about Nicholson ON Nicholson's birthday  - what no kittens to kick today? |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 22, 2019 19:53:51 GMT
Well Francis Ford Coppola did say Jack (and Pacino and DeNiro) had gotten lazy a while back and weren't doing anything interesting. As Coppola isn't an actor (those lying demons), I guess at least he can be trusted. On the contrary, Coppola could be trusted talking about other directors because directors don't see themselves as stars so there's no ulterior motive (but directors well they see actors as stars or lying demons, you got it!). Utterly ludicrous. Directors (the great ones anyway, and even some of the mediocre ones) can be some of the most egotistical human beings in existence. They can lie about and backstab their peers with the best of them.The "auteur theory" was designed to consecrate directors not just as "stars", but as "God" (in film terms). The notion that filmmakers don't ego boost other filmmakers due to ulterior motives or are above slating other directors due to envy or jealousy displays a fundamental lack of understanding of....well, people. All this underhanded skullduggery you seem to think applies exclusively to actors....pretty much applies to everyone. It's called human nature. You talk about the business and it's practitioners a lot, but I'm not sure you've ever worked in it. Because if you did, you'd know that directors bitch about each other needlessly all the time. And it's usually based on envy or somone else having a better career. Occasionally it might just be an honest assesment. |
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Apr 22, 2019 20:13:29 GMT
Well Francis Ford Coppola did say Jack (and Pacino and DeNiro) had gotten lazy a while back and weren't doing anything interesting. As Coppola isn't an actor (those lying demons), I guess at least he can be trusted. Coppola said that?? Really??? I mean, the guy isn't doing pretty much nothing for the last 20 years or so. And calls other people lazy? |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 22, 2019 20:17:45 GMT
Well Francis Ford Coppola did say Jack (and Pacino and DeNiro) had gotten lazy a while back and weren't doing anything interesting. As Coppola isn't an actor (those lying demons), I guess at least he can be trusted. Coppola said that?? Really??? I mean, the guy isn't doing pretty much nothing for the last 20 years or so. And calls other people lazy? Yep: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1566608/Francis-Ford-Coppola-mocks-Godfather-stars.htmlYeah, it's pretty damned ironic....Coppola accused them of "living off the fat of the land". He honestly could have been talking about himself, but maybe self-awareness isn't his strong suit. |
|
- never, ever, ever trust anything an actor says about another actor without insight (missing from Brando's quote) - you can like it or dislike it - that's fine - but it means less than 0 - great actors diss great (or greater) actors all the time - it can deal with ego, bitterness, careerism, a billion things.........great actors overpraise other actors all the time, it can deal with ego, a way to throw shade at another actor they don't even mention, can deal with vanity, ass-kissing, a billion things.
- what no kittens to kick today?