|
Post by stephen on Jun 19, 2020 21:13:34 GMT
Interesting to see that so many people prefer Freeman over Robbins in "Shawshank". I used to prefer Robbins because obviously Andy is the showier character, but Freeman is just so bloody perfect as Red (and who takes King's written character and gives him some much-needed soul and depth, because King's Red is such a passive narrator whose only purpose is just to get Andy the contraband) that nowadays, I prefer him. But they're both tremendous and I do nominate them both.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 19, 2020 21:15:28 GMT
Morgan Freeman should have won the Oscar for The Shawshank Redemption.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jun 19, 2020 23:31:27 GMT
Morgan Freeman should have won the Oscar for The Shawshank Redemption. Although my own winner personal winner is Hanks, Freeman is certainly a strong runner-up. If anything it might just be his best pure work as an actor. He really inhabits the role of Red. Plus if anything him winning would have been better then the actual film he won for, even if I don't despise his work in Million Dollar Baby like so many others do.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jun 20, 2020 13:16:44 GMT
Morgan Freeman should have won the Oscar for The Shawshank Redemption.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 20, 2020 14:01:11 GMT
Morgan Freeman should have won the Oscar for The Shawshank Redemption. Well Hanks did win the Oscar, and it wasn't a bad win at all. But I said what I said... Freeman would be my win. It's simply one of the most effortlessly humane and touching performances I've ever seen. Freeman's work speaks to the heart and the human condition without any gimmicks involved. It's soul shattering watching Red go up against the parole board again and again, and his exterior hardening each time as the expected rejection comes. I think Freeman gives the most iconic voice-over, possibly in film history. It's been endlessly imitated and parodied because it's that memorable. And it's kept Freeman earning millions of dollars in voice-over work since. And when he talks of his hopes and "the pacific being as blue as it is in my dreams".....that shit breaks grown men. Freeman. Every time. Would have been one of the greatest wins ever. And as a performance, it's the jewel in the crown of his career. That isn't a slight against Hanks, who was great (and it may be his best work...that or Big). But Freeman for me, was better.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jun 20, 2020 14:48:00 GMT
Well Hanks did win the Oscar, and it wasn't a bad win at all. But I said what I said... Freeman would be my win. It's simply one of the most effortlessly humane and touching performances I've ever seen. Freeman's work speaks to the heart and the human condition without any gimmicks involved. It's soul shattering watching Red go up against the parole board again and again, and his exterior hardening each time as the expected rejection comes. I think Freeman gives the most iconic voice-over, possibly in film history. It's been endlessly imitated and parodied because it's that memorable. And it's kept Freeman earning millions of dollars in voice-over work since. And when he talks of his hopes and "the pacific being as blue as it is in his dreams".....that shit breaks grown.men. Freeman. Every time. Would have been one of the greatest wins ever. And as a performance, it's the jewel in the crown of his career. That isn't a slight against Hanks, who was great (and it may be his best work...that or Big). But Freeman for me, was better. Freeman was terrific, no doubt about that. But maybe he's played so many times characters like Red (calm, smart, reasonable) that we consider it easy and usual for him. A great performance but not his best imo. Maybe I'd give that to Million Dollar Baby. Hanks had a much more juicier part but he nailed it. An iconic performance and easily the best of his career. (That "blue Pacific" line is one of my best ending quotes of all time!)
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 20, 2020 15:08:07 GMT
Well Hanks did win the Oscar, and it wasn't a bad win at all. But I said what I said... Freeman would be my win. It's simply one of the most effortlessly humane and touching performances I've ever seen. Freeman's work speaks to the heart and the human condition without any gimmicks involved. It's soul shattering watching Red go up against the parole board again and again, and his exterior hardening each time as the expected rejection comes. I think Freeman gives the most iconic voice-over, possibly in film history. It's been endlessly imitated and parodied because it's that memorable. And it's kept Freeman earning millions of dollars in voice-over work since. And when he talks of his hopes and "the pacific being as blue as it is in his dreams".....that shit breaks grown.men. Freeman. Every time. Would have been one of the greatest wins ever. And as a performance, it's the jewel in the crown of his career. That isn't a slight against Hanks, who was great (and it may be his best work...that or Big). But Freeman for me, was better. Freeman was terrific, no doubt about that. But maybe he's played so many times characters like Red (calm, smart, reasonable) that we consider it easy and usual for him. A great performance but not his best imo. Maybe I'd give that to Million Dollar Baby. Hanks had a much more juicier part but he nailed it. An iconic performance and easily the best of his career. (That "blue Pacific" line is one of my best ending quotes of all time!) I don't think it makes a difference if he's played similar characters since. Raging Bull doesnt suddenly stop being all-time great work by DeNiro, because he goes on to play similarly violent and destructive men many more times to lesser effect (whether it's in The Fan, Righteous Kill or whatever). Shawshank is an equally iconic performance to Gump. I don't think "juicier part" makes it a better performance. Yes, Hanks gets a Tropic Thunder type role which equals "more acting", but their is an ergonomic beauty in the simplicity of Freeman's work that Hanks, for all gimmicks his performance allows him, cannot match. Freeman's work is very much in tone with the great performances of a different era of movie stars. It's on a level with the work of Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men or Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird. When a performance like Freeman's happens in a film as near perfect as Shawshank, you get an all-timer. Million Dollar Baby was just a make-up Oscar because it was time for Freeman to win one. It's an okay performance, but by that time he could do it in his sleep. Shawshank was Freeman at the very peak of his powers and career. It was fresh and hit audiences in the gut. Different gravy
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jun 20, 2020 16:14:10 GMT
Freeman was terrific, no doubt about that. But maybe he's played so many times characters like Red (calm, smart, reasonable) that we consider it easy and usual for him. A great performance but not his best imo. Maybe I'd give that to Million Dollar Baby. Hanks had a much more juicier part but he nailed it. An iconic performance and easily the best of his career. (That "blue Pacific" line is one of my best ending quotes of all time!) Million Dollar Baby was just a make-up Oscar because it was time for Freeman to win one. It's an okay performance, but by that time he could do it in his sleep. Shawshank was Freeman at the very peak of his powers and career. It was fresh and hit audiences in the gut. Different gravy That's exactly what I mean by "he's played so many times such characters that we consider it easy and usual". At least that's how it feels now. I dunno about back then, in 1994, but now that's what I think about it, characters like Red, Freeman can play them in his sleep. Was it a good performance? Hell yes, a great one. But for MF it was just another day in the job. And no, De Niro has never played anything like Jake La Motta again, before or after Raging Bull. It wasn't only his self-destructive actions, it was also his anger, his depression, his ego, his body transformation... How could you say he played a similar character in........ Righteous Kill??
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 20, 2020 17:04:50 GMT
Million Dollar Baby was just a make-up Oscar because it was time for Freeman to win one. It's an okay performance, but by that time he could do it in his sleep. Shawshank was Freeman at the very peak of his powers and career. It was fresh and hit audiences in the gut. Different gravy That's exactly what I mean by "he's played so many times such characters that we consider it easy and usual". At least that's how it feels now. I dunno about back then, in 1994, but now that's what I think about it, characters like Red, Freeman can play them in his sleep. Was it a good performance? Hell yes, a great one. But for MF it was just another day in the job. I think this line of thinking is highly questionable. Every actor has a mode specific to them. I don't automatically dismiss every great Pacino performance at the peak of his powers where he shouts and gets angry because he did it in Dog Day Afternoon or Scarface , and did it a lot more times afterwards. Is Dog Day Afternoon now overrated because we know how comfortable Pacino is in that mode? I don't deny the value of that work in hindsight. I don't look back and say, "that must have been easy for Al, since he shouts all the time now".You might as well dismiss Jack Nicholson's entire career with that line of thinking. Maybe a lot of the shit we consider among their greatest work came easy/natural to them, but I can only evaluate the work on an individual basis, and how well it worked for me in that specific movie. Maybe DDA was just another day at work for Al, but it doesn't read that way to me, and neither does Morgan in Shawshank. How you feel is up to you though. Red is a specific individual character, that may share similarities with later Freeman characters, but was never repeated. It's to me, the apex of Freeman's work as a film actor. If you choose to think less of it because it fits a mode that we've become used to from him, that's up to you. But as I said, we can play that game that for a fuck ton of great actors and their best work, so it's a slippery slope.
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 4,816
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Jun 20, 2020 17:21:58 GMT
Well Hanks did win the Oscar, and it wasn't a bad win at all. But I said what I said... Freeman would be my win. It's simply one of the most effortlessly humane and touching performances I've ever seen. Freeman's work speaks to the heart and the human condition without any gimmicks involved. It's soul shattering watching Red go up against the parole board again and again, and his exterior hardening each time as the expected rejection comes. I think Freeman gives the most iconic voice-over, possibly in film history. It's been endlessly imitated and parodied because it's that memorable. And it's kept Freeman earning millions of dollars in voice-over work since. And when he talks of his hopes and "the pacific being as blue as it is in my dreams".....that shit breaks grown men. Freeman. Every time. Would have been one of the greatest wins ever. And as a performance, it's the jewel in the crown of his career. That isn't a slight against Hanks, who was great (and it may be his best work...that or Big). But Freeman for me, was better. I have to go with Freeman as well and I loved Hanks in Forrest Gump. That film was part of my childhood. But Freeman was never better IMO. Glory is 2nd to Shawshank as far as his work for me. As an aside..Bob Gunton should’ve gotten a Best Supporting Actor nom for his tremendous work as Warden Samuel Norton. An all-time great movie villain without the extremes of someone like the Joker. He slowly shows his evil as a character throughout the course of the film while masquerading as a warden/preacher hypocritically quoting bible verses. How his story ends is one of the great comeuppances in cinema history. Totally deserving of a nom, but the Academy was being obtuse that year.
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,388
Likes: 1,270
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Jun 20, 2020 17:25:11 GMT
Johnny Depp, Ed Wood *** Ralph Fiennes, Quiz Show Jean-Louis Tritignant, Three Colors Red Tom Hanks, Forrest Gump Samuel L. Jackson, Pulp Fiction Nigel Hawthorne, The Madness of King George John Travolta, Pulp Fiction
Better luck next time guys: Immortal Beloved, Interview with the Vampire, Nobody's Fool, A Pure Formality, Exotica, To Live, Death and the Maiden, Vanya on 42nd Street, Shawshank, etc...
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jun 20, 2020 17:33:01 GMT
That's exactly what I mean by "he's played so many times such characters that we consider it easy and usual". At least that's how it feels now. I dunno about back then, in 1994, but now that's what I think about it, characters like Red, Freeman can play them in his sleep. Was it a good performance? Hell yes, a great one. But for MF it was just another day in the job. I think this line of thinking is highly questionable. Every actor has a mode specific to them. I don't automatically dismiss every great Pacino performance at the peak of his powers where he shouts and gets angry because he did it in Dog Day Afternoon or Scarface , and did it a lot more times afterwards. Is Dog Day Afternoon now overrated because we know how comfortable Pacino is in that mode? I don't deny the value of that work in hindsight. I don't look back and say, "that must have been easy for Al, since he shouts all the time now".You might as well dismiss Jack Nicholson's entire career with that line of thinking. Maybe a lot of the shit we consider among their greatest work came easy/natural to them, but I can only evaluate the work on an individual basis, and how well it worked for me in that specific movie. Maybe DDA was just another day at work for Al, but it doesn't read that way to me, and neither does Morgan in Shawshank. How you feel is up to you though. Red is a specific individual character, that may share similarities with later Freeman characters, but was never repeated. It's to me, the apex of Freeman's work as a film actor. If you choose to think less of it because it fits a mode that we've become used to from him, that's up to you. But as I said, we can play that game that for a fuck ton of great actors and their best work, so it's a slippery slope. As I made clear before, I don't dismiss his performance in TSR at all, It's fantastic. But imo Hanks had a more difficult role and he gave the better performance. Simple as that. And tbh, Pacino and Jack have both been criticized because of his mannerisms. Maybe not for DDA but for other acclaimed performances (ie. Scarface and the Shining).
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 20, 2020 17:34:36 GMT
Well Hanks did win the Oscar, and it wasn't a bad win at all. But I said what I said... Freeman would be my win. It's simply one of the most effortlessly humane and touching performances I've ever seen. Freeman's work speaks to the heart and the human condition without any gimmicks involved. It's soul shattering watching Red go up against the parole board again and again, and his exterior hardening each time as the expected rejection comes. I think Freeman gives the most iconic voice-over, possibly in film history. It's been endlessly imitated and parodied because it's that memorable. And it's kept Freeman earning millions of dollars in voice-over work since. And when he talks of his hopes and "the pacific being as blue as it is in my dreams".....that shit breaks grown men. Freeman. Every time. Would have been one of the greatest wins ever. And as a performance, it's the jewel in the crown of his career. That isn't a slight against Hanks, who was great (and it may be his best work...that or Big). But Freeman for me, was better. I have to go with Freeman as well and I loved Hanks in Forrest Gump. That film was part of my childhood. But Freeman was never better IMO. Glory is 2nd to Shawshank as far as his work for me. As an aside..Bob Gunton should’ve gotten a Best Supporting Actor nom for his tremendous work as Warden Samuel Norton. An all-time great movie villain without the extremes of someone like the Joker. He slowly shows his evil as a character throughout the course of the film while masquerading as a warden/preacher hypocritically quoting bible verses. How his story ends is one of the great comeuppances in cinema history. Totally deserving of a nom, but the Academy was being obtuse that year. Gunton was superb, and you are right....he was incredible and fully deserved a supporting actor nomination. He is one of the great movie villains, but like you say, fully human, without the extremes of some of the more rewarded villain work. I feel like Gunton gets overlooked as a snub because the film had two great central performances in Freeman and Robbins (who suck up a lot of the attention) , and he's a character actor who never had that opportunity before or after to distinguish himself that powerfully in a role.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 20, 2020 17:38:24 GMT
I think this line of thinking is highly questionable. Every actor has a mode specific to them. I don't automatically dismiss every great Pacino performance at the peak of his powers where he shouts and gets angry because he did it in Dog Day Afternoon or Scarface , and did it a lot more times afterwards. Is Dog Day Afternoon now overrated because we know how comfortable Pacino is in that mode? I don't deny the value of that work in hindsight. I don't look back and say, "that must have been easy for Al, since he shouts all the time now".You might as well dismiss Jack Nicholson's entire career with that line of thinking. Maybe a lot of the shit we consider among their greatest work came easy/natural to them, but I can only evaluate the work on an individual basis, and how well it worked for me in that specific movie. Maybe DDA was just another day at work for Al, but it doesn't read that way to me, and neither does Morgan in Shawshank. How you feel is up to you though. Red is a specific individual character, that may share similarities with later Freeman characters, but was never repeated. It's to me, the apex of Freeman's work as a film actor. If you choose to think less of it because it fits a mode that we've become used to from him, that's up to you. But as I said, we can play that game that for a fuck ton of great actors and their best work, so it's a slippery slope. As I made clear before, I don't dismiss his performance in TSR at all, It's fantastic. But imo Hanks had a more difficult role and he gave the better performance. Simple as that. Fair enough. Agree to disagree. I thought Hanks was excellent, but Freeman moved me significantly more, and thus to me, was better. I have no issue with someone preferring Hanks. It's not like it's a weak performance. I'd just give the Oscar to Freeman personally.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jun 20, 2020 17:42:45 GMT
I have to go with Freeman as well and I loved Hanks in Forrest Gump. That film was part of my childhood. But Freeman was never better IMO. Glory is 2nd to Shawshank as far as his work for me. As an aside..Bob Gunton should’ve gotten a Best Supporting Actor nom for his tremendous work as Warden Samuel Norton. An all-time great movie villain without the extremes of someone like the Joker. He slowly shows his evil as a character throughout the course of the film while masquerading as a warden/preacher hypocritically quoting bible verses. How his story ends is one of the great comeuppances in cinema history. Totally deserving of a nom, but the Academy was being obtuse that year. Gunton was superb, and you are right....he was incredible and fully deserved a supporting actor nomination. He is one of the great movie villains, but like you say, fully human, without the extremes of some of the more rewarded villain work. I feel like Gunton gets overlooked as a snub because the film had two great central performances in Freeman and Robbins, and he's a character actor who never had that opportunity before or after to distinguish himself that ppowerfully in a role. The entire ensemble of Shawshank Redemption is excellent from top to bottom, and while the full cast is always cited in reviews and retrospectives of the film, I feel like they never got their proper duo. Not just Bob Gunton, who plays a great sympathetic villainous warden, but also William Sadler as one of the crazy inmates, whom Robbins strikes up a light friendship with. They help to make the film as memorable it is.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 20, 2020 17:44:53 GMT
As I made clear before, I don't dismiss his performance in TSR at all, It's fantastic. But imo Hanks had a more difficult role and he gave the better performance. Simple as that. And tbh, Pacino and Jack have both been criticized because of his mannerisms. Maybe not for DDA but for other acclaimed performances (ie. Scarface and the Shining).Yeah and this is a little trick when you read critics on performances because it's a critical trap: A critic will NEVER say anything about mannerisms for a very early performance - DDA was his 6th performance on film really but just you wait until 8 years later they totally will beat it into the ground .......case in point Joaquin as the Joker - those who hate it (and there were some) often hate it within the pantheon of performances of his they've already judged earlier.......which is kind of critical cheating in a way. For The Shining I always say it's Jack's 1 truly inspired, creative and great performance in those 10 years (76-86) and in those 10 years .......Jack got nominated for 3 Oscars and won 1.
|
|
|
Post by ingmarhepburn on Jun 20, 2020 17:48:18 GMT
1. Tim Robbins, The Shawshank Redemption 2. Morgan Freeman, The Shawshank Redemption 3. Tom Hanks, Forrest Gump 4. Hugh Grant, Four Weddings and a Funeral 5. John Cusack, Bullets over Broadway
|
|