|
Post by fiosnasiob on Jun 4, 2019 15:35:54 GMT
Because yeah it happens ! Or if you don't like that word, movies that you originally saw for an actor but ended being more impressed by someone else in the movie, like I saw The Panic in Needle Park and Mississippi Masala for Pacino and Denzel but it was really Kitty Winn and Sarita Choudhury's performances that caught my attention. Sadly both actresses never really lived up from these breakthrough starring roles. As for fav actresses, I will add Wild Iris, at the time I watched it for Queen Gena (who's terrific) but Laura Linney is spectacular in it.
If possible actors with almost equal parts, not the flamboyant character actor stealing a scene, as it happens more often but any answer is welcome.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 4, 2019 15:54:36 GMT
I don't think my favorite actor gets outshined much but sometimes it happens - I don't think Kitty Winn is the better lead at all actually - I think that Pacino heralded a seismic change in acting and a whole lot of actresses could have been Winn.
But Russell Crowe in The Insider, Michelle Pfeiffer in Frankie and Johnny, and Christopher Walken in Stand Up Guys did it.......sometimes you're there to just support or in the case of Crowe you catch lightning in a bottle where his performance far exceeds anything else in his Hollywood career and everybody is in great form surrounding him too.
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Jun 4, 2019 16:25:03 GMT
I think Kitty Winn in Panic in Needle Park absolutely outshined Al Pacino. That's a good example, actually. What a performance from her.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 4, 2019 16:35:44 GMT
I think Kitty Winn in Panic in Needle Park absolutely outshined Al Pacino. That's a good example, actually. What a performance from her. I'll third that I guess. Winn really did steal that movie. Hackman in Scarecrow was another early 70's Pacino film where I felt he got overshadowed somewhat in a role of roughly equal size and scope. Gene Hackman really imposed his will on that movie, thought Pacino was pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 4, 2019 16:36:46 GMT
A "Kitty Winn" example that will come up here is definitely Vicky Krieps in Phantom Thread - I don't agree with that one at all either - I think like Winn she's fine/aces but the lesser acclaimed to her celebrated co-star. Sometimes people stretch that thing out incorrectly (imo) it's the same that they do in general acting and how capable actors (ie Paul Giamatti) get overpraised
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 4, 2019 16:39:25 GMT
I think Kitty Winn in Panic in Needle Park absolutely outshined Al Pacino. That's a good example, actually. What a performance from her. I'll third that I guess. Winn really did steal that movie. Hackman in Scarecrow was another early 70's Pacino film where I felt he got overshadowed somewhat in a role of roughly equal size and scope. Gene Hackman really imposed his will on that movie, thought Pacino was pretty good. That one to me is sort of an equal greatness in each performance - in Pacino's pantheon he has a few of those Scarecrow, Heat, Phil Spector ........ones where one performance without the other would cause the film to fail.
|
|
|
Post by fiosnasiob on Jun 4, 2019 16:50:51 GMT
I think Kitty Winn in Panic in Needle Park absolutely outshined Al Pacino. That's a good example, actually. What a performance from her. I'll third that I guess. Winn really did steal that movie. Hackman in Scarecrow was another early 70's Pacino film where I felt he got overshadowed somewhat in a role of roughly equal size and scope. Gene Hackman really imposed his will on that movie, thought Pacino was pretty good. Yeah Scarecrow too but It's Gene F/cking Hackman, it's never a surprise when it's him. What about Nicole Kidman ? Or Kirk ?
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 4, 2019 16:51:33 GMT
Hmm...I sort of think Hackman sort of finnessed Pacino to the point where his perfromance feels significantly more dominant and less derivative. Pacino is fine, by I think he was still in the early stages of his film career doing his Dustin Hoffman impersonation in that film (sort of like Paul Newman spent a couple of his early films "doing Brando", before finding himself).
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jun 4, 2019 16:58:49 GMT
Since Al is my fav, I'll post my opinion: I don't think he was overshadowed in PITNP. Winn was very good but Al was amazing!!! I also believe he gave an equally great performance as Hackman in Scarecrow and Mirren in Phil Spector. Where I think he was outshined was in Insomnia (Williams' acting was outstanding as much as unexpected) and in Salome. I saw this only for Pacino (didn't know Chastain back then) and she wowed me!! And imo De Niro was slightly (just slightly) better in Heat.... Speaking of Bob, The Deer Hunter is the best example of what fiosnasiob means: I watched an iconic De Niro film in order to see an iconic De Niro performance but... I saw Chris Walken instead
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 4, 2019 17:04:15 GMT
Hmm...I sort of think Hackman sort of finnessed Pacino to the point where his perfromance feels significantly more dominant and less derivative. Pacino is fine, by I think he was still in the early stages of his film career doing his Dustin Hoffman impersonation in that film (sort of like Paul Newman spent a couple of his early films "doing Brando", before finding himself). Not really .......he didn't really have that Newman/Brando thing except in looks to Hoffman not so much characterizations at all. Hoffman's Ratso is a dangerous character - he could literally kill you - and Pacino's isn't dangerous at all - and now two people have mentioned him being outshined in his first 6 performances which is the greatest streak ever for an American actor - it's just doesn't stand up when you analyze it. That's why that is the greatest streak ever, because no one outshined him then Hackman is exactly how you know him to be at the start right up until the end (with some slight hints) - but Pacino's character is the pulse of the film, the odd detours, the humor, the reveals about the character as you go on and on, the underlying darkness is all on him - sometimes without speaking - the scene after the strip tease at the bar for example. Really it's much more like Heat and Phil Spector to me - take one performance away - and I mean performance not character - and it collapses.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 4, 2019 17:04:53 GMT
I'll third that I guess. Winn really did steal that movie. Hackman in Scarecrow was another early 70's Pacino film where I felt he got overshadowed somewhat in a role of roughly equal size and scope. Gene Hackman really imposed his will on that movie, thought Pacino was pretty good. Yeah Scarecrow too but It's Gene F/cking Hackman, it's never a surprise when it's him. What about Nicole Kidman ? Or Kirk ? Kirk...hmmm. Gertrude Lawrence outperforms him in The Glass Menagerie. Kidman...Michael Keaton makes a bigger impact than her for me in My Life, one of her early Hollywood roles.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 4, 2019 17:19:22 GMT
Hmm...I sort of think Hackman sort of finnessed Pacino to the point where his perfromance feels significantly more dominant and less derivative. Pacino is fine, by I think he was still in the early stages of his film career doing his Dustin Hoffman impersonation in that film (sort of like Paul Newman spent a couple of his early films "doing Brando", before finding himself). and now two people have mentioned him being outshined in his first 6 performances which is the greatest streak ever for an American actor - it's just doesn't stand up when you analyze it. That's why that is the greatest streak ever, because no one outshined him then I think that's more of an opinion than a fact, though there is nothing outlandish about wanting to argue it. Pacino had a great 70's run, and cumulatively it deserves high praise (especially when you put his actual big gun performances and movies in there, like the Godfather films, DDA, Serpico), but you don't have to think he gave the best performance in every film to see it as a great run. I made a thread on this ages ago, but I think Matthew McConaughey may have the most impressive streak of any American screen actor (so much so that his streak has become an adjective), yet career wise, he's not someone I put at GOAT level. So while streaks are nice to have, they are not careers. Pacino's standing isn't built on a consecutive run of 6 performances It's built over several decades of work. Something McConaughey doesn't have to the level of others.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 4, 2019 17:30:50 GMT
I would say actually that your thread on McConaughey/Kidman and their "streaks" was even more opinion than fact actually - I addressed that there - I didn't address Kidman but MM is a creation of the internet medium age to me. It's not legitimately considered in the Pacino or Brando streaks (or many others) - but it's fine if you feel that way........and Kidman's isn't Streep/Huppert (or many others) either, not hardly, but sure, there's not many facts we can present here.
Streaks are nice to have and streaks aren't careers that's true but you have to think WHEN people are seeing these movies. Think about it:
This isn't 1971 or 1973 - you're seeing the films out of the context of their time too - what year did most see them? Where did they fit into films you are seeing by these actors?
So many people see Kitty Winn and say "I had never heard of her, she's just as good as Pacino" - but not really, she isn't it's just you never heard of her and she's really good..........many people are seeing Hackman BE Hackman so of course you like it because when is he ever anything else but what he is and Pacino has never been like Scarecrow before or much since...........so you're responding to what you already know and like about an actor too. One is eating a comfort food, one is eating something you've never had before........that's part of it too.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jun 4, 2019 17:59:37 GMT
So many people see Kitty Winn and say "I had never heard of her, she's just as good as Pacino" - but not really, she isn't it's just you never heard of her and she's really good..........many people are seeing Hackman BE Hackman so of course you like it because when is he ever anything else but what he is and Pacino has never been like Scarecrow before or much since...........so you're responding to what you already know and like about an actor too. One is eating a comfort food, one is eating something you've never had before........that's part of it too. Dude, it's alright if people think an actor was better than Pacino in a single film during his early years. It's a simple preference, no need to try to psychoanalyze someone's preference just because you don't share it (a road that can go both ways, by the by). If you don't agree with it or you prefer Pacino for your own reasons, that's all good but don't dismiss or try to explain someone else's opinion as being faulty or relying entirely on some kind of revisionist context. Hackman and Winn's performances aren't chopped liver, they were widely praised even at the time - hell, Winn won Best Actress at Cannes - so it's not like someone preferring their performances over peak Pacino is some bizarre phenomena that needs investigating.
|
|
|
Post by fiosnasiob on Jun 4, 2019 18:04:53 GMT
Since Al is my fav, I'll post my opinion: I don't think he was overshadowed in PITNP. Winn was very good but Al was amazing!!! I also believe he gave an equally great performance as Hackman in Scarecrow and Mirren in Phil Spector. Where I think he was outshined was in Insomnia (Williams' acting was outstanding as much as unexpected) and in Salome. I saw this only for Pacino (didn't know Chastain back then) and she wowed me!! And imo De Niro was slightly (just slightly) better in Heat.... Speaking of Bob, The Deer Hunter is the best example of what fiosnasiob means: I watched an iconic De Niro film in order to see an iconic De Niro performance but... I saw Chris Walken instead I got a similar experience when I watched Faces, it was the last Cassavetes/Rowlands movie I discovered, I was so ready for Gena to knocks it again but the unknown (to me) Lynn Carlin appeared and delivered all the magics.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 4, 2019 18:55:56 GMT
So many people see Kitty Winn and say "I had never heard of her, she's just as good as Pacino" - but not really, she isn't it's just you never heard of her and she's really good..........many people are seeing Hackman BE Hackman so of course you like it because when is he ever anything else but what he is and Pacino has never been like Scarecrow before or much since...........so you're responding to what you already know and like about an actor too. One is eating a comfort food, one is eating something you've never had before........that's part of it too. Dude, it's alright if people think an actor was better than Pacino in a single film during his early years. It's a simple preference, no need to try to psychoanalyze someone's preference just because you don't share it (a road that can go both ways, by the by). If you don't agree with it or you prefer Pacino for your own reasons, that's all good but don't dismiss or try to explain someone else's opinion as being faulty or relying entirely on some kind of revisionist context. Hackman and Winn's performances aren't chopped liver, they were widely praised even at the time - hell, Winn won Best Actress at Cannes - so it's not like someone preferring their performances over peak Pacino is some bizarre phenomena that needs investigating. Maybe but you have to do more than just say to me ___________ was better than ________ otherwise put the thread in the lists or something which leaves no room for discussion - are we not allowed now to discuss performances in an acting thread on the acting board now - wtf - since when? You do realize that Winn winning Best Actress at Cannes means she was the Best Actress at Cannes only - not that she was better than her co-star right. I'm not sure since you're throwing it in my face like I didn't know? You do realize I praised both those performances right - and Hackman's in particular I said was an equivalent to him. If you're going to chastise me for "revisionist context" (what? where?) ............Jesus......what is your problem today mike, it's alright if you stay out of it entirely and let pupdurcs respond if he wants to yanno.....just sayin........
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Jun 4, 2019 19:31:04 GMT
Keeping with the theme of the thread...
Chris O'Donnell took Pacino to acting school in Scent of a Woman.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 4, 2019 19:36:23 GMT
One I would say fits this thread for me is a performance I've talked about a lot (and especially in the old IMDB days) is Ian Bannen in The Offence.
The picture when I saw it, I though was just a Sean Connery picture - I saw it when I was very young and indeed he's terrific here but Bannen a more than just solid character gave a performance of such guile and keen intelligence I immediately thought this role should have been played by no less than Olivier and Olivier is an all-time fave of mine. One year earlier in Sleuth, Olivier gave a somewhat similar performance for an entirely different effect - some of the best and most venomous (and a times funny) line readings on film of it's time. Bannen however doesn't play anything for straight laughs here at all - it's all fragmented through how we hear it and how Connery hears it - even his humor per se has an undercurrent of the blackest of hearts and the darkest of deeds.
He's not only great himself but especially in the way he mocks Connery in speech and manner and draws things out in him too. He knew Connery and had worked with him before and it's precisely the kind of performance where say if you were drunk and you wanted to get under the other person's skin you know exactly how to go about it.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,702
Likes: 2,126
|
Post by cherry68 on Jun 4, 2019 19:37:01 GMT
Keeping with the theme of the thread... Chris O'Donnell took Pacino to acting school in Scent of a Woman. None of the two is as good as the original Vittorio Gassman / Alessandro Momo imo.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,702
Likes: 2,126
|
Post by cherry68 on Jun 4, 2019 19:40:16 GMT
Back in the 90s, I watched Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead because of Dreyfus. I ended up falling for Oldman and Roth.
|
|
|
Post by fiosnasiob on Jun 4, 2019 19:49:50 GMT
Keeping with the theme of the thread... Chris O'Donnell took Pacino to acting school in Scent of a Woman. Not sure I understand what you are trying to do here. So saying that Hackman or Winn are better than Pacino in their respectives movies would be comparable (as ridiculous) as saying that O'Donnell is better than Pacino in Scent of a Women ? Really ? It's THAT bad of an opinion for you to use some kind of sarcasm ? I don't get it. And just a reminder, this is about our favorites actors, not a hate thread or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Jun 4, 2019 20:23:44 GMT
Sorry pacionyes ... yes, Phantom Thread is the perfect example of this to me: DDL is amazing, one of the very best performances of his career and such a high note to go out on (presumably), he's so damn watchable and it's easily one of the funniest cinematic performances in recent memory ... and yet he's surprisingly out-shined by both Krieps and Manville. Krieps gives one of the most confident and fiercest performances I've seen of any actress of her age/experience, a true force to be reckoned with, manages the vulnerability of the character beautifully along with her more cunning side -- she's a true natural talent, a mesmerizingly seamless (sorry, bad pun...) performance, one of the very best of this decade (can she please get more roles soon??). And Manville turns in what is probably my favorite performance by a supporting actress in at least the past few years ... she does more with her eyes alone in that role than most actors can do with their entire bodies throughout their careers. Her demeanor is just staggering, her stare is iconic.
Together the three certainly make up some sort of holy trinity, and I hate saying that Krieps and Manville are "better" than DDL because that seems to undervalue his performance, which I would never want to do. He is truly phenomenal ... but Krieps and Manville both leave an even deeper impression on me, a near-impossible feat when sharing the frame with a GOAT in his top form.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Jun 4, 2019 20:40:11 GMT
Keeping with the theme of the thread... Chris O'Donnell took Pacino to acting school in Scent of a Woman. Not sure I understand what you are trying to do here. So saying that Hackman or Winn are better than Pacino in their respectives movies would be comparable (as ridiculous) as saying that O'Donnell is better than Pacino in Scent of a Women ? Really ? It's THAT bad of an opinion for you to use some kind of sarcasm ? I don't get it. And just a reminder, this is about our favorites actors, not a hate thread or something like that. It was a joke. But I'll get serious and say it's a little crazy to me that someone can watch a movie like Scarecrow and walk away from it saying that one of the actors "outshined" the other. For me, it's a movie that is as great as it is because both actors work so perfectly together. Totally different characters, incredibly different performances... but perfect together. I'd say De Niro/Walken in The Deer Hunter is another iffy example. Many people (including myself) put Walken high on the list of GOAT supporting performances... but most of those same people (including myself) also put De Niro's work in that upper echelon (though not quite as high). So what's the point in saying one all-timer performance "outshines" another? Especially when those two performances together create magic for the film... But I'll stop bitching and give this question a solid answer... - Jeremy Irons outshines De Niro in The Mission. Wanted to choose something from the prime of De Niro's filmography... and it helps that he's a bit miscast in it which makes this easier to say... - Ellen Barkin outshines Pacino in Sea of Love. GREAT Pacino performance, but Barkin leaves more of an impression. [side note -- Barkin also outshines De Niro and DiCaprio in This Boy's Life] - Annnnnnnd I'll say Tom Wilkinson is a little bit better Sissy Spacek in In the Bedroom.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jun 4, 2019 20:50:34 GMT
Keeping with the theme of the thread... Chris O'Donnell took Pacino to acting school in Scent of a Woman. They were both outshined by Manny the chauffer...
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jun 4, 2019 20:58:09 GMT
Dude, it's alright if people think an actor was better than Pacino in a single film during his early years. It's a simple preference, no need to try to psychoanalyze someone's preference just because you don't share it (a road that can go both ways, by the by). If you don't agree with it or you prefer Pacino for your own reasons, that's all good but don't dismiss or try to explain someone else's opinion as being faulty or relying entirely on some kind of revisionist context. Hackman and Winn's performances aren't chopped liver, they were widely praised even at the time - hell, Winn won Best Actress at Cannes - so it's not like someone preferring their performances over peak Pacino is some bizarre phenomena that needs investigating. Maybe but you have to do more than just say to me ___________ was better than ________ otherwise put the thread in the lists or something which leaves no room for discussion - are we not allowed now to discuss performances in an acting thread on the acting board now - wtf - since when? I'd encourage you to discuss the performances, hence why I didn't quote you talking about what you felt Pacino brought in Scarecrow for example, but the hoops you were jumping through trying to explain why anyone could prefer Winn's ("something you've never had before") or Hackman's ("comfort food") performances just struck me as some horseshit you were throwing out there because you couldn't fathom someone thinking '70s Pacino got outshined. Stick to talking about the performances, why you prefer or at least put Pacino's acting on equivalent terms and don't think he's outshined, etc. instead of trying to pseudo-analyze why someone else might think differently - which, I repeat, is something that could go the other way but nobody cares (nor should they) to deconstruct you as an audience member loving Pacino since they'd rather just talk about the performances.
|
|