|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Nov 29, 2019 16:08:19 GMT
Which one of these 2 mostly wordless performances do you prefer? And do you think they are Oscar worthy?
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Nov 29, 2019 16:16:12 GMT
Robbie I guess. I think they both did a perfectly serviceable job with what they were given to do.
This is the second or third time today I've seen people refer to a lack of dialogue for Robbie as Tate. Perhaps a rewatch is much needed, but I would say she had a reasonable amount to say. In comparison to Peggy Sheeran she never shut up.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 29, 2019 16:20:04 GMT
Well neither are Oscar worthy - I'll get into trouble here because a lot of sharp people on this board love OUATIH but my complaint with it (the 3rd act because I loved acts 1 & 2) is also a complaint in how she's treated - to me she has to die to be symbolic of anything where Paquin very specifically does not have to die and of course lives Each of them is a screenwriters conceit more than anything that's underwritten or sexist or anything like that .......but in QT's film it doesn't fit as successfully. Great avatar btw.....
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Nov 29, 2019 16:27:06 GMT
I wouldn't award either of them but it's a shame they both had so little to do in their films. You could tell they could have been brilliant if they had more to work with.
Having said that, I'd go with Robbie. She makes her character very likable and innocent (knowing of course what happened to her in real life) and the excitement and pride she shows when she's watching herself in a movie is just great acting!!
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Nov 29, 2019 16:27:47 GMT
This is the second or third time today I've seen people refer to a lack of dialogue for Robbie as Tate. Perhaps a rewatch is much needed, but I would say she had a reasonable amount to say. In comparison to Peggy Sheeran she never shut up. It's not that Robbie had no dialogue at all as much as it is that she had nothing relevant or consequential to say. Her dialogue is entirely comprised of small talk and filler, and her most impactful scene (watching The Wrecking Crew at the theater) is wordless. Paquin may have had no more than a couple lines of dialogue in a single scene, but that's entirely justified by the way the story is framed.
|
|
|
Post by notacrook on Nov 29, 2019 16:36:21 GMT
It's very frustrating when it comes to these two, as they're both giving fantastic performances that would be so much more if they were given meatier material. As it is, they're given the bare minimum and therefore it's very difficult for them to make an impression. I'd strongly argue that with more to do, they'd both make my lineup.
As to who's better, I guess I'll give the edge to Robbie, who killed that cinema scene. I also adore the little scene with her talking to the ticket girl. She's truly luminous - when given the chance.
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Nov 29, 2019 18:13:13 GMT
I don't think either of them does anything noteworthy, let alone deserving of an awards nomination. They're fine, that's it. Their very thin roles don't help them at all though and I doubt that most actresses, however great they may be, would do anything better than they did in those particular roles.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Nov 29, 2019 18:40:42 GMT
Robbie, both in terms of performance and the character's place and purpose in the overall picture.
|
|
|
Post by MoonShadow on Nov 29, 2019 23:51:52 GMT
Wow so even Paquin got a raw deal in her film?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 30, 2019 0:14:22 GMT
I mean, Robbie actually made an impact. It was the bare minimum, but she at least did enough to make somewhat of an impression. To me, the only notable aspect about Paquin is that Scorsese cast an Oscar-winning actress to be window dressing. If Peggy had been played by a complete unknown, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Nov 30, 2019 0:41:28 GMT
So the problem isn't that Paquin was miscast for the role but that she has an Oscar? That's kind of a weird thing to complain about. As she herself has said, she "auditioned for the privilege of joining the incredible cast of The Irishman" and is "incredibly proud to get to be a part of this film". What exactly are people complaining about here?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 30, 2019 0:43:11 GMT
So the problem isn't that Paquin was miscast for the role but that she has an Oscar? That's kind of a weird thing to complain about. As she herself has said, she "auditioned for the privilege of joining the incredible cast of The Irishman" and is "incredibly proud to get to be a part of this film". What exactly are people complaining about here? I never said she was miscast. I said that the part is so utterly lacking that the only notable aspect of her presence in the film is that she has an Oscar and wound up playing such a thankless role for an actress of her caliber.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 30, 2019 0:45:08 GMT
I mean, Robbie actually made an impact. It was the bare minimum, but she at least did enough to make somewhat of an impression. To me, the only notable aspect about Paquin is that Scorsese cast an Oscar-winning actress to be window dressing. If Peggy had been played by a complete unknown, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. I'd disagree here - Paquin makes an impression and "if she'd been played by an unknown" is like saying if Memento was told chronologically it wouldn't be as good - I mean you can't start altering the film in that way.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Nov 30, 2019 0:48:19 GMT
I never said she was miscast. I said that the part is so utterly lacking that the only notable aspect of her presence in the film is that she has an Oscar and wound up playing such a thankless role for an actress of her caliber. That's exactly my point. If the complaint was that she was miscast, that'd make sense (even if I disagreed with that complaint). But complaining that she got a thankless role (which it isn't, according to Paquin herself) for being an Oscar-winning actress is weird and doesn't make sense. Why would it be okay to cast her if she was an unknown without an Oscar and a problem if she had an Oscar? Was Scorsese supposed to refuse to audition her because she was a known actress with an Oscar?
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Nov 30, 2019 0:57:13 GMT
This is the second or third time today I've seen people refer to a lack of dialogue for Robbie as Tate. Perhaps a rewatch is much needed, but I would say she had a reasonable amount to say. In comparison to Peggy Sheeran she never shut up. It's not that Robbie had no dialogue at all as much as it is that she had nothing relevant or consequential to say. Her dialogue is entirely comprised of small talk and filler, and her most impactful scene (watching The Wrecking Crew at the theater) is wordless. Paquin may have had no more than a couple lines of dialogue in a single scene, but that's entirely justified by the way the story is framed. I definitely see your point on the value, or lack thereof of what Robbie was given to say in her fim. However, at the risk of being pedantic, the poll is about comparing mostly wordless performances. One of the performances is almost entirely wordless and one of them isn't. That's all I was getting at, quantity and not quality.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 30, 2019 2:02:14 GMT
I never said she was miscast. I said that the part is so utterly lacking that the only notable aspect of her presence in the film is that she has an Oscar and wound up playing such a thankless role for an actress of her caliber. That's exactly my point. If the complaint was that she was miscast, that'd make sense (even if I disagreed with that complaint). But complaining that she got a thankless role (which it isn't, according to Paquin herself) for being an Oscar-winning actress is weird and doesn't make sense. Why would it be okay to cast her if she was an unknown without an Oscar and a problem if she had an Oscar? Was Scorsese supposed to refuse to audition her because she was a known actress with an Oscar? I think we have to make the delineation between "role" and "opportunity." Obviously, Paquin was delighted to take any role available as long as she got to work with Scorsese, but the role itself was so lacking that it calls attention to itself than an A-list actress took a part that offered her so little.
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Nov 30, 2019 2:07:22 GMT
Both were treated like wallpaper and it's a real freaking shame. I guess I'd go with Robbie, and while she left no impact on me, at least her subplot had some meat to it.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Nov 30, 2019 2:08:27 GMT
I think we have to make the delineation between "role" and "opportunity." Obviously, Paquin was delighted to take any role available as long as she got to work with Scorsese, but the role itself was so lacking that it calls attention to itself than an A-list actress took a part that offered her so little. I don't think anything calls attention to anything. It's getting attention because people want to be offended in their efforts to virtue signal. Were people this offended when De Niro went uncredited for a short role in American Hustle? No, because he chose to go uncredited in a small role that he wanted to play. It's the same thing here. I'm still not understanding how you want this to have gone. Let me offer what I think were the only options. 1. Should Paquin not have wanted to play the role because other people think it was "beneath" her? 2. Should Scorsese not have auditioned Paquin just because she had an Oscar? 3. Should the role have been expanded just because Paquin wanted to play it and she had an Oscar? What exactly should have happened, in your view?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 30, 2019 2:17:03 GMT
I think we have to make the delineation between "role" and "opportunity." Obviously, Paquin was delighted to take any role available as long as she got to work with Scorsese, but the role itself was so lacking that it calls attention to itself than an A-list actress took a part that offered her so little. I don't think anything calls attention to anything. It's getting attention because people want to be offended in their efforts to virtue signal. Were people this offended when De Niro went uncredited for a short role in American Hustle? No, because he chose to go uncredited in a small role that he wanted to play. It's the same thing here. I'm still not understanding how you want this to have gone. Let me offer what I think were the only options. 1. Should Paquin not have wanted to play the role because other people think it was "beneath" her? 2. Should Scorsese not have auditioned Paquin just because she had an Oscar? 3. Should the role have been expanded just because Paquin wanted to play it and she had an Oscar? What exactly should have happened, in your view? De Niro had far more weight and impact in his five-minute cameo than Paquin did in hers, so it isn't even remotely the same thing, but okay. No one's saying an actress can't take a small role in a film, if that's what she wants to do. But there's nothing about the part that is noteworthy on its own. Paquin taking the part is really the only reason people are talking about the Peggy character in the first place. Again, if it had been an unknown actress who had taken the role and did exactly the same thing Paquin did, would we be discussing her at all? Or is it based on name recognition? What should have happened? If you're asking me, they should've made Peggy an actual character with some actual impact on the story beyond the token acknowledgment of it that we got in the finished product. That would've been a nice start.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Nov 30, 2019 2:29:23 GMT
De Niro had far more weight and impact in his five-minute cameo than Paquin did in hers, so it isn't even remotely the same thing, but okay. Well, that's subjective, isn't it? Someone else might say De Niro was cool and all, but that Paquin was a haunting presence. You could say the same thing about De Niro in American Hustle, so I still don't know what the problem is. So that's option 3. What if Jennifer Lawrence wanted to play the Nurse at the end (played by Polanco) and got the part? Should that role then have also been expanded because an Oscar-winning star was playing it? Where does this end?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 30, 2019 4:01:27 GMT
Well, that's subjective, isn't it? Someone else might say De Niro was cool and all, but that Paquin was a haunting presence. Sure, it's subjective, as all things are when judging a film's quality. If you feel Paquin had a haunting presence, then she did her job and the performance worked. But regardless of your thoughts on the finished product, even if you're a fan of her performance, you have to admit that there's nothing about the role itself that really makes it a draw for an actress. It was the opportunity to work with Scorsese that did that. De Niro's role in American Hustle felt to me like a wink from O. Russell, as he was blatantly trying to ape Scorsese and he wanted to use the quintessential Scorsese mobster actor in a quintessential mobster role. De Niro enjoyed working with O. Russell in Silver Linings Playbook and was seemingly happy to do it again, and I'm guessing the "uncredited" bit was because they wanted to keep his involvement a surprise to the general public. But even so, there is a fair amount that De Niro actually gets to do in his brief time on-screen, whereas Peggy just gets to give troubled glances, then suspicious glances, then angry glances. Regardless of your feelings on Paquin's ability to achieve believability in these scenes, there's not a whole lot on the page that gives Paquin much to do other than be a passive morality pet. Then it would've been distracting as hell. But you're missing the point. No one's saying that the role should've been expanded because Paquin took the part. The role should've been expanded because the movie tries to make Peggy this essential fixture in Frank's life and fails to do so. It pays lip service to the old saw about killers who surrender their soul and humanity in the course of their jobs, and alienate their families, but doesn't earn it.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Nov 30, 2019 4:10:09 GMT
Sure, it's subjective, as all things are when judging a film's quality. If you feel Paquin had a haunting presence, then she did her job and the performance worked. But regardless of your thoughts on the finished product, even if you're a fan of her performance, you have to admit that there's nothing about the role itself that really makes it a draw for an actress. It was the opportunity to work with Scorsese that did that. De Niro's role in American Hustle felt to me like a wink from O. Russell, as he was blatantly trying to ape Scorsese and he wanted to use the quintessential Scorsese mobster actor in a quintessential mobster role. De Niro enjoyed working with O. Russell in Silver Linings Playbook and was seemingly happy to do it again, and I'm guessing the "uncredited" bit was because they wanted to keep his involvement a surprise to the general public. But even so, there is a fair amount that De Niro actually gets to do in his brief time on-screen, whereas Peggy just gets to give troubled glances, then suspicious glances, then angry glances. Regardless of your feelings on Paquin's ability to achieve believability in these scenes, there's not a whole lot on the page that gives Paquin much to do other than be a passive morality pet. Personally, I feel De Niro's role/performance was more impactful, but I'd much prefer Paquin's role because it's in an actual Scorsese classic as opposed to a dress-up Scorsese wannabe movie. But again, that's just what I think and it doesn't matter. Point is that they're both small roles, and if you're going to clutch your pearls over Paquin playing a small role, you're gonna have to do the same for De Niro in American Hustle, because it's essentially the same thing. That's a completely different thing, then, which has absolutely nothing to do with who ended up playing the part so, again, I don't see what the problem with Paquin playing that part is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2019 4:16:30 GMT
Both nailed their roles and served as the symbolic heart of the hardest hitting emotional gutpunches of their respective films, but Robbie takes this for me.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 30, 2019 4:22:03 GMT
Personally, I feel De Niro's role/performance was more impactful, but I'd much prefer Paquin's role because it's in an actual Scorsese classic as opposed to a dress-up Scorsese wannabe movie. But again, that's just what I think and it doesn't matter. Point is that they're both small roles, and if you're going to clutch your pearls over Paquin playing a small role, you're gonna have to do the same for De Niro in American Hustle, because it's essentially the same thing. Small roles =/= nothing roles. De Niro had a more impactful role (in a godawful movie, yes, but his was the best scene of the movie by far), but he had a point and a purpose and even though I am loath to give any credit to David O. Russell, I have nothing really negative to say about that scene. I like Steve Zaillian a great deal and find him a fine screenwriter, but he just didn't succeed with Peggy's characterization. I like The Irishman more than American Hustle, but not by much, but I'm not "clutching pearls" because Paquin played a tiny role in a Martin Scorsese joint. I get why she did it. I just don't think the role gave her anything to work with, and the only reason she's being bandied about in a comparison thread with Margot Robbie is because she's the biggest female name in the movie, despite Welker White, Lucy Gallina, and arguably Marin Ireland and Kathrine Narducci having more to do.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Nov 30, 2019 4:28:51 GMT
Small roles =/= nothing roles. De Niro had a more impactful role (in a godawful movie, yes, but his was the best scene of the movie by far), but he had a point and a purpose and even though I am loath to give any credit to David O. Russell, I have nothing really negative to say about that scene. I like Steve Zaillian a great deal and find him a fine screenwriter, but he just didn't succeed with Peggy's characterization. This is all subjective. Like I said, I'd much rather have Paquin's role in TR than De Niro's in TI. It's not just the roles that matter but also the movies. Either way, they're both small roles in different movies, and maybe Paquin wanted to be in TR more for the movie than for the role. And that's perfectly all right. I mean, if you don't think there is any problem with Paquin playing that part, I have no argument with you. A lot of people were clutching their pearls over Paquin playing a small role, and that's more what I was addressing. Personally, I thought the Peggy role was well-written and served its purpose very well, but I don't want to get into a debate over something so subjective because I've learned long ago that it's pointless.
|
|