|
Post by pupdurcs on May 14, 2020 0:53:28 GMT
Dafoe is (currently) popular on a board like this because he's having a moment in time in his career and is an arthouse favorite. I've seen it happen all the time since early IMDB (remember when everyone was on Depp and Downey Jr, before they got too popular and still did art films. No one talks about once beloved arthouse leading men like Bardem or Mortensen like they used to). In places like this, actors become flavor of the month for a year or two, as if nobody in the world is better than them, then suddenly it's "I never knew that guy" . It's an incredibly fickle thing, and if this goes as it usually does, in a year or two, some new board favorite on a decent run and arthouse sensibilities that's not too popular with the general public will be annointed (bets on Sam Rockwell?) as the "best actor working" (at least on this board), and Dafoe will be left behind. Before Joker, Phoenix would probably have got the most mentions easily (he ticked all the arthouse boxes). But he's now getting too popular/mainstream after leading a billion dollar superhero movie to be as obvious a pick. Dafoe is a very fine character actor and arguably one of the best working, but realistically he has zero currency in this debate that I've seen, outside this board and like 15 people on it. Like, at all. People do not talk about Dafoe in that light outside this board that I've seen, so he's an anti-mainstream pick. But he's genuinely good and not mainstream, so the appeal here is obvious. Yup, I love Dafoe as a performer, and as an actor, and I always think he's almost always think he's trying to challenge himself with the parts he picks, but I won't deny, he's really more of an artsy snob kinda choice. To your average person on the street, they probably still recognize him as The Green Goblin, best. Yeah, it's always somewhat amusing to see Dafoe be now so prominent in "best actor working/alive" conversations on this board, when I've never once encountered that conversation with anyone in either real life or even other parts of the internet. I don't even feel fellow actors put him on that kind of pedestal. He's not rated that highly in general terms (though he is liked and respected), which may be part of the artsy snob appeal here, as you say. I'll feel bad for Dafoe when this board eventually dumps him for Sam Rockwell
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on May 14, 2020 1:16:31 GMT
Yup, I love Dafoe as a performer, and as an actor, and I always think he's almost always think he's trying to challenge himself with the parts he picks, but I won't deny, he's really more of an artsy snob kinda choice. To your average person on the street, they probably still recognize him as The Green Goblin, best. Yeah, it's always somewhat amusing to see Dafoe be now so prominent in "best actor working/alive" conversations on this board, when I've never once encountered that conversation with anyone in either real life or even other parts of the internet. I don't even feel fellow actors put him on that kind of pedestal. He's not rated that highly in general terms (though he is liked and respected), which may be part of the artsy snob appeal here, as you say. I'll feel bad for Dafoe when this board eventually dumps him for Sam Rockwell Well Dafoe seems to be respected enough in the industry now, given his two recent Oscar nominations, but it feels like more of a later day, "we've all come around thing". Before then he was more of a casual "deserves some attention" type, who like every actor, occasionally dabbled in the mainstream to pay the bills. As for Rockwell, if the response to his first two Oscar nominations and win are anything to go by, then online film nerds may want to dump him sooner then they might potentially leave Dafoe.
|
|
wattsnew
Full Member
Posts: 712
Likes: 347
|
Post by wattsnew on May 14, 2020 21:23:11 GMT
Willem Dafoe and Naomi Watts, easily.
Never seen a Denzel film though, and currently have no interest in watching one. Maybe when he stars in an acclaimed film or works with an auteur (the next coen bro’s film could do it).
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 14, 2020 22:05:37 GMT
The Dafoe argument as he continues to get votes is a real interesting one and I differ from people who see him as being a niche actor or rather just "popular now" - I see him occupying the new niche that cinema falls into now......he's an extension of Robert Duvall and PSH - guys who played character roles and leads.
People may not know all his work but no one "normal" person watches movies seriously nowadays anyway - the people who have a "best" are people like this board - people who have a "best" actor by their very nature nowadays are the "arty" people.
Dafoe is to me the first actor you could arguably call the "best" of his US generation - that's very arguably - not the greatest star or anything like that - but the legitimate "best actor" of his 1980s class. Prior to him it was always a leading man who would have been called best actor of his generation or class:
PSH was the best actor of his decade/generation too - but calling him that felt like a compromise with the big stars still around and movies mattering far more then than now........but Dafoe however is really the one that suggests from now on the best actor may never be an actual movie star again (I don't really think that will be the case but it's fun to look at and think how that's changed).
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 14, 2020 23:25:31 GMT
The Dafoe thing (which I literally only see here) feels like an inverse popularity contest on this board. Truth is, this time last year, Joaquin Phoenix's name would have been all over this thread (I think only one person has mentioned him so far) and probably well in the lead. He was the board's favorite current anti-establishment actor....did almost nothing but acclaimed indies that few people saw, but recieved plenty of critical praise. His career and lack of mainstream popularity was catnip to this board. Joker changed that somewhat. Suddenly regular people are digging Wock as the crown Prince Of Crime and he feels like just a little bit too much of a popular choice, with his lead Oscar and billion dollar leading comic book role. His talent hasn't changed one iota, but he's suddenly not quite as identifiable. People here still like him, but it's not quite the same "he was our secret" vibe any longer.....Now fuckin' Joe Rogan or whomever is fanboying over Wock because he's the Joker......
Dafoe is a good fit to take that spot here...talented and acclaimed, but not too popular. Works with all the right auteurs. But that spot gets replaced and recycled all the time if you pay close attention. So someone will replace him at some point (hence the Sam Rockwell gag). It's very much an extended flavor of the month thing, and that's why it often doesnt translate to perception in the real world (where Dafoe will probably never become an actual thing in greatest actor conversations , beyond being known as the guy who played The Green Goblin). It has very little to do with being "the best actor" or "the most talented actor". It's almost a form of identification. It's in the nature of film nerds to identify outside the mainstream or with underdogs. Phoenix was that for awhile, but suddenly less so now. Dafoe is still that.
It's one of the reasons why polls here mean very little. In 2 or 3 years time, Sam Rockwell may well be the next arthouse film posterboy getting the most mentions on a thread like this because people here identify with his career and choices (just like it was once Depp or it was once Bardem or it was once Viggo whose names would have been all over this thread). It won't actually make him the best actor alive, but it'll say something about whom a specific tiny minority of film nerds on this board are identifying with at that particular moment in time. Till the next guy comes along.
Dafoe is good. But to people in the wider world he ain't that good. But he's a perfect fit here when you understand the nature of a board like this, in a specific moment in time. It no more or less facile than people preferring "popular" actors that are seen as the consensus "greats".
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on May 14, 2020 23:34:06 GMT
I think he's an interesting figure for how he pops up in so many places, and is willing to try anything and usually acquits himself well (and is a soulful actor), but I think you need to be able to put a strong movie on your shoulders more than Dafoe has done, as I think it requires a different level of concentration that ultimately has more reverberations on me as a viewer. He's not nearly as interesting to me in stuff like The Last Temptation of Christ as he is in something like Wild at Heart. For me, figures like Duvall and PSH were more capable in straddling the character/lead divide.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 14, 2020 23:58:00 GMT
I think he's an interesting figure for how he pops up in so many places, and is willing to try anything and usually acquits himself well (and is a soulful actor), but I think you need to be able to put a strong movie on your shoulders more than Dafoe has done, as I think it requires a different level of concentration that ultimately has more reverberations on me as a viewer. He's not nearly as interesting to me in stuff like The Last Temptation of Christ as he is in something like Wild at Heart. For me, figures like Duvall and PSH were more capable in straddling the character/lead divide. Exactly. He's a great actor and works with interesting directors, but there's a reason he's never been able to establish that audience connection that's crucial in enshrining actors in the pantheon, and you've kind of hit upon part of it. It's a crucial aspect he's lacking in. For me, it's almost impossible to fathom how you can have a 135 film career over 30 years old, and that audience connection still doesn't seem to be there. You watch Mississippi Burning, and he fades somewhat next to Gene Hackman, also a gifted character actor, but also someone with those qualities you mention.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 15, 2020 0:00:37 GMT
Daniel Day-Lewis and Marion Cotillard are my favorites.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 15, 2020 0:10:13 GMT
Daniel Day-Lewis and Marion Cotillard are my favorites. This is actually the first mention of DDL since mine in the first post: The only UK/US actor under 70 actor in our GOAT top 10 (in top 5 even - he was #3) - must really be considered "retired" now by most people not to be mentioned (?) - although when that specific topic comes up on this board most people say they don't think he really is retired anyway. Cotillard, Binoche, Huppert and Adjani (all mentioned) would be a great non-US/French pick if they won - any of them - they cover a unique set of attributes and talents.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on May 15, 2020 0:31:23 GMT
I think he's an interesting figure for how he pops up in so many places, and is willing to try anything and usually acquits himself well (and is a soulful actor), but I think you need to be able to put a strong movie on your shoulders more than Dafoe has done, as I think it requires a different level of concentration that ultimately has more reverberations on me as a viewer. He's not nearly as interesting to me in stuff like The Last Temptation of Christ as he is in something like Wild at Heart. For me, figures like Duvall and PSH were more capable in straddling the character/lead divide. Exactly. He's a great actor and works with interesting directors, but there's a reason he's never been able to establish that audience connection that's crucial in enshrining actors in the pantheon, and you've kind of hit upon part of it. It's a crucial aspect he's lacking in. For me, it's almost impossible to fathom how you can have a 135 film career over 30 years old, and that audience connection still doesn't seem to be there. You watch Mississippi Burning, and he fades somewhat next to Gene Hackman, also a gifted character actor, but also someone with those qualities you mention. Yeah, Dafoe can be a fascinating character, but often as a lead he's unconventional to an almost fault. That doesn't make him a bad actor at all, but it's something to note when considering the divide between your average moviegoer, and a heavy cinephile, in regards to his place in the culture of film in general.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on May 15, 2020 14:11:58 GMT
Actress: Several worthy candidates (Cotillard, Swinton, Blanchett, Watts etc.) but for me it's definitely Olivia Colman. Her versatility knows no bounds. Tyrannosaur, The Favourite, Broadchurch, Fleabag ... this woman literally can do it all.
Actor: If PSH were still alive I'd say it's him but since he's not, Joaquin Phoenix. Like Colman, his versatility blows every actor of his age range out of the water, and he by far chooses the best projects.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 15, 2020 14:22:59 GMT
Actress: Several worthy candidates (Cotillard, Swinton, Blanchett, Watts etc.) but for me it's definitely Olivia Colman. Her versatility knows no bounds. Tyrannosaur, The Favourite, Broadchurch, Fleabag ... this woman literally can do it all. Actor: If PSH were still alive I'd say it's him but since he's not, Joaquin Phoenix. Like Colman, his versatility blows every actor of his age range out of the water, and he by far chooses the best projects. Colman and Phoenix would definitely be in contention for me for the runner-up spot in both categories. Colman's last decade has shown perhaps the most dizzying versatility of any actor working, and Phoenix has hit height after height. I'd also consider Mark Rylance as a challenger for the men, and Blanchett for the ladies.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on May 15, 2020 16:21:18 GMT
Exactly. He's a great actor and works with interesting directors, but there's a reason he's never been able to establish that audience connection that's crucial in enshrining actors in the pantheon, and you've kind of hit upon part of it. It's a crucial aspect he's lacking in. For me, it's almost impossible to fathom how you can have a 135 film career over 30 years old, and that audience connection still doesn't seem to be there. You watch Mississippi Burning, and he fades somewhat next to Gene Hackman, also a gifted character actor, but also someone with those qualities you mention. Yeah, Dafoe can be a fascinating character, but often as a lead he's unconventional to an almost fault. That doesn't make him a bad actor at all, but it's something to note when considering the divide between your average moviegoer, and a heavy cinephile, in regards to his place in the culture of film in general. So Dafoe isn't the best actor under 70 because he hasn't played enough boring lead roles to satisfy the average moviegoer? Does that mean Harrison Ford is a better actor than Marlon Brando?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 15, 2020 17:00:54 GMT
I don't want to make it seem like I'm advocating for Dafoe - my vote was DDL and then leaning Bardem if I remove DDL - but I think some are missing his uniqueness and the reasons people are drawn to Dafoe in the first place: The ascendancy of Dafoe is also related to his peers - the American acting class of the 1980s - which if you put the big stars all together would both mimic and crucially NOT mimic what you had in the 1970s big "star" actors - ie everyone we're eliminating in this thread: Hanks, Washington, Cage, Spacey, Penn have some attributes of the previous decades "big stars" and they even had their own unique attributes too - but with noticeable shortfalls (Hanks is too nice! Cage is too broad! etc.) that make them seem lesser than what came before. That is not the case with Dafoe - a big part of his appeal is not even so much who he is but also specifically who he isn't. It's the same concept as Alternative Rock.....but now applied to the movies.
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1,620
|
Post by Javi on May 15, 2020 17:46:33 GMT
I don't want to make it seem like I'm advocating for Dafoe - my vote was DDL and then leaning Bardem if I remove DDL - but I think some are missing his uniqueness and the reasons people are drawn to Dafoe in the first place: The ascendancy of Dafoe is also related to his peers - the American acting class of the 1980s - which if you put the big stars all together would both mimic and crucially NOT mimic what you had in the 1970s big "star" actors - ie everyone we're eliminating in this thread: Hanks, Washington, Cage, Spacey, Penn have some attributes of the previous decades "big stars" and they even had their own unique attributes too - but with noticeable shortfalls (Hanks is too nice! Cage is too broad! etc.) that make them seem lesser than what came before. That is not the case with Dafoe - a big part of his appeal is not even so much who he is but also specifically who he isn't. It's the same concept as Alternative Rock.....but now applied to the movies. Good post, and also--not an interesting lead? His face is the film in At Eternity's Gate... how many actors can claim that? Not only that, but he's the only van Gogh I've seen that suggests his style or at least his approach to painting in the actual performance. The Lighthouse (where he's also lead) derives much of its fascination from him. I would say he's grown better and more interesting with age, that much is true, but he was no slouch in the 80s/90s either. He's the movie Jesus as far as I'm concerned. That also separates him from the 70s/80s actors... the nature of the roles he takes on which seems at odds with the sort of stuff that gets acclaim today. GOAT or not, he's unique.
|
|
|
Post by thomasjerome on May 15, 2020 17:57:25 GMT
Wasn't the question about who do WE consider to be the best actor? So not sure if I get all these "audience connection" talks. Why the fuck should I care if he's regarded as such by an average person on the street? Yeah, people here love him more than general audiences because big part of his filmography doesn't necessarily appeal to them and that's the point; that's part of his appeal that he's doing basically every kind of film/role, he never stays the same and most of the time, he comes off very impressive. Yes, he has done some very widely seen films like "Spider Man", "Platoon" and oh, well, "The Fault in Our Stars" (even those three films are wildly different and yet, he's brilliant in all of them for different reasons) and some popular cult/genre stuff like "The Boondock Saints" and "Streets of Fire" but most of the time, he doesn't go for films that would necessarily appeal to general audiences and I don't get how is this connected with the best ACTOR talk, since the question was not about who do you consider the biggest star or anything. Those who love "The Boondock Saints" won't be on the first in line to watch some weird art movie he's doing with Theo Angelopoulos. Did general audiences supposed to love all those Abel Ferrara movies he keeps doing and they suddenly didn't because Dafoe is just not interesting as a leading man? Which I strongly disagree btw, he's a TERRIFIC LEAD actor in Last Temptation, The Hunter, Light Sleeper, Tom & Viv, Antichrist, Triumph of the Spirit, At Eternity's Gate, Pasolini and others.
His performance in "Mississippi Burning" is great also, because he didn't even want to do this at the first place since it was "flat" character on the script, especially compared to Hackman's who had a much better material to work with but when you watch the performance, you see he's doing everything and more that could be done with such character which is what makes him a special actor.
What else makes him special is that Willem is an actor with a remarkable range; there are not many actors who could play the characters in "Life Aquatic" and "To Live and Die in L.A." equally great. His auteur resume is impressive and he's a big-risk taker; he loves to challenge himself. That's why he's loved among cinephiles here or anywhere else where people have actually watched his stuff. I don't think anyone would go "oh, I don't rank him that highly" unless they've only seen him in a random paycheck role (Aquaman) or some thankless part (Inside Man, Odd Thomas). And it'd be very unfair to hold those against him to overshadow all the great work he's done through the years and STILL doing. Well, I'm sorry that I did watch "Dog Eat Dog" and found him brilliant. Next time I'll check out only "popular actors" and widely seen films, since if you have an "unpopular" favorite, that means you're some artsy snob (urgh).
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 15, 2020 18:06:38 GMT
Ehhh....I like Dafoe well enough (he's a wonderful character actor), but for me he's got little case outside of being the current non-mainstream arthouse actor that this board is infatuated with. And that will pass at some point, guaranteed. A decade ago on a board like this, he'd have been Viggo Mortensen or something. Viggo is a great actor....but is he a pantheon actor? Probably not. And neither is Willem.
General audiences don't rate him at all like that, and even his own peers don't. How do you overcome that double whammy? Yeah, they respect him, but how often have you heard other actors single Dafoe out as the best of his generation or the best working? That is not really a common thing. Even Edward Norton, while recently promoting Motherless Brooklyn, a film he directed starring Willem Dafoe....Norton managed to single out Denzel Washington as the best actor working today. An actor he's never even worked with. Was that being disrespectful to Dafoe? Not really. He's just never been seen in that light by his peers, and still isn't. He's definitely rated (4 Oscar nods attest to that), but never to the point where his peers think he stands above the rest.
It's not like he's Philip Seymour Hoffman either, who was taking on the big challenges in theatre, to help elevate his standing among his peers. Hoffman (like Washington) took on Mount Everest theatre challenges like Long Day's Journey Into The Night and Death Of A Salesman, and that completely played a part in him standing apart in the eyes of his peers.
Dafoe is actually a capable stage actor, but he's never took those chances, preferring to mostly perform in his tiny experimental theatre company (The Wooster Group) on minor productions for years on end....never building the rep of being one of the major American stage actors of his generation. That has cost him big time, imho.
He's just a weird no man's land kind of actor. I think he's probably tremendously underrated by general audiences, rated about correctly by his peers, and becoming ridiculously overrated on this board.
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,388
Likes: 1,270
|
Post by avnermoriarti on May 15, 2020 18:34:55 GMT
For the guys, it could be Bale, Phoenix, DDL, DiCaprio, Dafoe but it's Oldman for me. If I'm curious to see what can an actor do in a random movie like Child 44 or Lawless is him, looks effortless the way he reads the temper and fits the sensibility of the movie.
Fo the gals, Moore, Swinton, Huppert, Winslet, Blanchett, Cotillard make STRONG cases but is Binoche for me. Her presence is such that she becomes the motor and rythm of movies ( goods, bads and in-between ), creates the effect tht the camera simply follows her wherever she goes.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on May 15, 2020 19:14:21 GMT
Ehhh....I like Dafoe well enough (he's a wonderful character actor), but for me he's got little case outside of being the current non-mainstream arthouse actor that this board is infatuated with. And that will pass at some point, guaranteed. A decade ago on a board like this, he'd have been Viggo Mortensen or something. Viggo is a great actor....but is he a pantheon actor? Probably not. And neither is Willem. General audiences don't rate him at all like that, and even his own peers don't. How do you overcome that double whammy? Yeah, they respect him, but how often have you heard other actors single Dafoe out as the best of his generation or the best working? That is not really a common thing. Even Edward Norton, while recently promoting Motherless Brooklyn, a film he directed starring Willem Dafoe....Norton managed to single out Denzel Washington as the best actor working today. An actor he's never even worked with. Was that being disrespectful to Dafoe? Not really. He's just never been seen in that light by his peers, and still isn't. He's definitely rated (4 Oscar nods attest to that), but never to the point where his peers think he stands above the rest. It's not like he's Philip Seymour Hoffman either, who was taking on the big challenges in theatre, to help elevate his standing among his peers. Hoffman (like Washington) took on Mount Everest theatre challenges like Long Day's Journey Into The Night and Death Of A Salesman, and that completely played a part in him standing apart in the eyes of his peers. Dafoe is actually a capable stage actor, but he's never took those chances, preferring to mostly perform in his tiny experimental theatre company on minor productions (The Wooster Group) for years on end....never building the rep of being one of the major American stage actors of his generation. That has cost him big time, imho. He's just a weird no man's land kind of actor. I think he's probably tremendously underrated by general audiences, rated about correctly by his peers, and becoming ridiculously overrated on this board. Yes, I've been thinking a lot about this. Earlier I wasn't trying to denigrate Dafoe as an actor, he doesn't need to be a Harrison Ford type leading man to be successful or critically acclaimed, but there's also the idea that maybe he's too much of an out of the box type performer to be truly that successful. I'm thinking back to his earlier films, and how occasionally he might dabble into potential "leading man suaver" roles, and how the results were often times middling. Like in something such as the awful Body of Evidence (only reason I bring it up, is because I've been hearing it a lot on bad movie podcasts lately), he's not exactly believable as the "scumbag Michael Douglas type charmer", because he looks and acts like somebody who might actually be the crazy killer. On the other hand, he's more perfect to play Jesus because that character requires a lot more straightforward intensity. If anything, I think he's found a much better balancing ground in recent years. He can still do weird and interesting things like in The Lighthouse, and then occasionally play the Hollywood game by showing in something like Aquaman, but at the same time there's a still remoteness to him, that arguably makes him inaccessible. I guess, just like with any actor, who has an "daring indie vibe" to them, there's always a question if there rated high enough or too high?!
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 15, 2020 23:51:55 GMT
Ehhh....I like Dafoe well enough (he's a wonderful character actor), but for me he's got little case outside of being the current non-mainstream arthouse actor that this board is infatuated with. And that will pass at some point, guaranteed. A decade ago on a board like this, he'd have been Viggo Mortensen or something. Viggo is a great actor....but is he a pantheon actor? Probably not. And neither is Willem. General audiences don't rate him at all like that, and even his own peers don't. How do you overcome that double whammy? Yeah, they respect him, but how often have you heard other actors single Dafoe out as the best of his generation or the best working? That is not really a common thing. Even Edward Norton, while recently promoting Motherless Brooklyn, a film he directed starring Willem Dafoe....Norton managed to single out Denzel Washington as the best actor working today. An actor he's never even worked with. Was that being disrespectful to Dafoe? Not really. He's just never been seen in that light by his peers, and still isn't. He's definitely rated (4 Oscar nods attest to that), but never to the point where his peers think he stands above the rest. It's not like he's Philip Seymour Hoffman either, who was taking on the big challenges in theatre, to help elevate his standing among his peers. Hoffman (like Washington) took on Mount Everest theatre challenges like Long Day's Journey Into The Night and Death Of A Salesman, and that completely played a part in him standing apart in the eyes of his peers. Dafoe is actually a capable stage actor, but he's never took those chances, preferring to mostly perform in his tiny experimental theatre company on minor productions (The Wooster Group) for years on end....never building the rep of being one of the major American stage actors of his generation. That has cost him big time, imho. He's just a weird no man's land kind of actor. I think he's probably tremendously underrated by general audiences, rated about correctly by his peers, and becoming ridiculously overrated on this board. Yes, I've been thinking a lot about this. Earlier I wasn't trying to denigrate Dafoe as an actor, he doesn't need to be a Harrison Ford type leading man to be successful or critically acclaimed, but there's also the idea that maybe he's too much of an out of the box type performer to be truly that successful. I'm thinking back to his earlier films, and how occasionally he might dabble into potential "leading man suaver" roles, and how the results were often times middling. Like in something such as the awful Body of Evidence (only reason I bring it up, is because I've been hearing it a lot on bad movie podcasts lately), he's not exactly believable as the "scumbag Michael Douglas type charmer", because he looks and acts like somebody who might actually be the crazy killer. On the other hand, he's more perfect to play Jesus because that character requires a lot more straightforward intensity. If anything, I think he's found a much better balancing ground in recent years. He can still do weird and interesting things like in The Lighthouse, and then occasionally play the Hollywood game by showing in something like Aquaman, but at the same time there's a still remoteness to him, that arguably makes him inaccessible. I guess, just like with any actor, who has an "daring indie vibe" to them, there's always a question if there rated high enough or too high?! When we assess the relative greatness of actors, it all counts. Never let anyone try to convince you otherwise. Yes, their range and technical ability matters. But so does how audiences perceive and respond to you. So does how your peers rate you. So does how critics percieve you. Are you percieved as a great on film as well as stage? Can you be accessible as a presence? What's your emotional range? Are audiences equally captivated by you playing shades of light or dark etc etc Marlon Brando wasn't just Marlon Brando because he was a technically adept actor. There were probably technically more proficient actors than him in his era. He ultimately ticked a shitload of boxes that combined to make him a pantheon actor. Audiences were spellbound by his presence.Plenty of movie stars have that. But they aren't also equally worshipped by their peers, critics, a legendary stage performer etc etc. It's hard to tick all or as many of those boxes as possible. Willem Dafoe is a talented and versatile actor, but for me, there are way too many boxes he doesn't tick for me to suddenly start pretending I believe he's a pantheon level actor, because he's the current arthouse flavor of the moment actor here (with the "daring indie vibe", as you say). And that's not meant to be disrespectful, because I know I'll still be liking much of his work when the current mini- bandwagon eventually disappears (and oh, it will!). I may not elevate him to what I percieve to be a silly level relative to what I believe he is, but my perspective that he's a very fine character actor won't change with the fickle winds.
|
|
|
Post by DaleCooper on May 16, 2020 0:08:32 GMT
DiCaprio and Ronan would be my favorites.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on May 16, 2020 0:45:17 GMT
Yes, I've been thinking a lot about this. Earlier I wasn't trying to denigrate Dafoe as an actor, he doesn't need to be a Harrison Ford type leading man to be successful or critically acclaimed, but there's also the idea that maybe he's too much of an out of the box type performer to be truly that successful. I'm thinking back to his earlier films, and how occasionally he might dabble into potential "leading man suaver" roles, and how the results were often times middling. Like in something such as the awful Body of Evidence (only reason I bring it up, is because I've been hearing it a lot on bad movie podcasts lately), he's not exactly believable as the "scumbag Michael Douglas type charmer", because he looks and acts like somebody who might actually be the crazy killer. On the other hand, he's more perfect to play Jesus because that character requires a lot more straightforward intensity. If anything, I think he's found a much better balancing ground in recent years. He can still do weird and interesting things like in The Lighthouse, and then occasionally play the Hollywood game by showing in something like Aquaman, but at the same time there's a still remoteness to him, that arguably makes him inaccessible. I guess, just like with any actor, who has an "daring indie vibe" to them, there's always a question if there rated high enough or too high?! When we assess the relative greatness of actors, it all counts. Never let anyone try to convince you otherwise. Yes, their range and technical ability matters. But so does how audiences perceive and respond to you. So does how your peers rate you. So does how critics percieve you. Are you percieved as a great on film as well as stage? Can you be accessible as a presence? What's your emotional range? Are audiences equally captivated by you playing shades of light or dark etc etc Marlon Brando wasn't just Marlon Brando because he was a technically adept actor. There were probably technically more proficient actors than him in his era. He ultimately ticked a shitload of boxes that combined to make him a pantheon actor. Audiences were spellbound by his presence.Plenty of movie stars have that. But they aren't also equally worshipped by their peers, critics, a legendary stage performer etc etc. It's hard to tick all or as many of those boxes as possible. Willem Dafoe is a talented and versatile actor, but for me, there are way too many boxes he doesn't tick for me to suddenly start pretending I believe he's a pantheon level actor, because he's the current arthouse flavor of the moment actor here (with the "daring indie vibe", as you say). And that's not meant to be disrespectful, because I know I'll still be liking much of his work when the current mini- bandwagon eventually disappears (and oh, it will!). I may not elevate him to what I percieve to be a silly level relative to what I believe he is, but my perspective that he's a very fine character actor won't change with the fickle winds. Thanks. I know its all opinion and perception. Every actor has their own wheelhouse that they act in, some are just bigger and more popular then others. Not everyone wants to be Brando or Daniel-Day-Lewis levels of commitment, at the same time not every actor wants to be relatable like Tom Hanks. It's like a juggling act. I get your Dafoe opinion. There is a feeling it's a bit of a "flavor of the moment" type thing, at the same time I do like the appreciation he has gotten as of late, even if I think he's really an acquired taste as a performer. At the end of the day, guess it just comes down to where you stand on his acting, and career as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 16, 2020 9:12:37 GMT
When we assess the relative greatness of actors, it all counts. Never let anyone try to convince you otherwise. Yes, their range and technical ability matters. But so does how audiences perceive and respond to you. So does how your peers rate you. So does how critics percieve you. Are you percieved as a great on film as well as stage? Can you be accessible as a presence? What's your emotional range? Are audiences equally captivated by you playing shades of light or dark etc etc Marlon Brando wasn't just Marlon Brando because he was a technically adept actor. There were probably technically more proficient actors than him in his era. He ultimately ticked a shitload of boxes that combined to make him a pantheon actor. Audiences were spellbound by his presence.Plenty of movie stars have that. But they aren't also equally worshipped by their peers, critics, a legendary stage performer etc etc. It's hard to tick all or as many of those boxes as possible. Willem Dafoe is a talented and versatile actor, but for me, there are way too many boxes he doesn't tick for me to suddenly start pretending I believe he's a pantheon level actor, because he's the current arthouse flavor of the moment actor here (with the "daring indie vibe", as you say). And that's not meant to be disrespectful, because I know I'll still be liking much of his work when the current mini- bandwagon eventually disappears (and oh, it will!). I may not elevate him to what I percieve to be a silly level relative to what I believe he is, but my perspective that he's a very fine character actor won't change with the fickle winds. Thanks. I know its all opinion and perception. Every actor has their own wheelhouse that they act in, some are just bigger and more popular then others. Not everyone wants to be Brando or Daniel-Day-Lewis levels of commitment, at the same time not every actor wants to be relatable like Tom Hanks. It's like a juggling act. I get your Dafoe opinion. There is a feeling it's a bit of a "flavor of the moment" type thing, at the same time I do like the appreciation he has gotten as of late, even if I think he's really an acquired taste as a performer. At the end of the day, guess it just comes down to where you stand on his acting, and career as a whole. I'm a dyed in the wool cynic when it comes to this kind of disproportionate elevation of well regarded arthouse performers when they are having a moment in their careers. When you see this thing happen over and over again, you know the drill and you know how it ends. In the 1990's, because he was having a moment in his career and a darling of indie cinema, a certain type of cinephile would act with a straight face as if Harvey Kietel (a very fine actor, no question) was greater than Pacino, DeNiro, Nicholson, Hackman and Hoffman combined. Kietel was working with Tarantino in his prime and whipping his dick out for Abel Ferrera and Jane Campion!!!! He's much more "daring" than those other guys in that period of his career and now revealed himself as the true "best actor of his generation" (that 70's generation). Look at his range!!!! He plays Maori tribesmen and gets naked!!!! Those other guys are overrated compared to Harvey because they are much more popular "movie stars". Real talk! Of course it was fucking ludicrous then, and reality set in again eventually, and Kietel was no longer clearly better than all his generational peers, even to those discerning cinephiles who tried to elevate him way above his status, and then promptly got bored of him and moved on. He went from being claimed by some overly enthusiastic cinephilles as the single greatest actor working or living, back to being the 12th best actor of his generation or whatever he's realistically considered as. But this Johnny-Come-Lately Dafoe flex reeks of that.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 16, 2020 10:37:50 GMT
I don't think the Keitel-Dafoe argument holds up either - Keitel who legit really may have been the best working actor of the 1990s - if you just take a snapshot of that decade - was only in his 4th decade in film in the 90s after essentially being off the radar in the 80s and almost nothing in the 60s - his work is limited and less expansive. Dafoe however is in his FIFTH decade now and consistently in film - and has major performances at every point in that long career too.
Dafoe maybe translates as film best actor of the 2010s like Keitel in the 90s but the rest of the context is entirely different. Keitel wouldn't have actually made an iota of sense to be called the "best actor overall of his peers" at any point in the 90s, but that's not the case with Dafoe:
You could call the best film actor of his 80s generation (highly arguable), AND of the 2010s decade (still arguable), AND the best under 70 in the whole world (that's the most arguable thing of all!) when you assess his totality of work...that's why so many vote for him it seems to me.
Anyway:
Not yet mentioned by anyone: Kate Winslet - who is the most Oscar nominated actor or actress in her age range (DiCaprio and Adams who are close have votes here, Winslet does not) and she's maybe 2nd (imo) in talent to Blanchett in English ....... Winslet's career troubles have definitely made people turn their backs on her but a little surprised she's not tallied a single vote in this thread.......and the usually popular and quite beloved on here Toni Colette as well.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 16, 2020 13:34:15 GMT
Hmmm... Willem Dafoe and Judy Davis maybe. Really surprised Davis is under 70. Love her ........and as far as someone who works all 3 mediums she's as good as they come - and across all kinds of material: heavy drama, wild risk taking comedy........ she's a force of nature. Especially when you go across all mediums - she might be the most underrated and underappreciated actor male or female on this board tbh.....
|
|