|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 29, 2020 14:07:27 GMT
Now, he names his "5 geniuses" here and they are at least 4 obvious ones: Brando, DePac, Streep, Chaplin.He doesn't say there are "just 5" ............and I'm sure we could all name our fave actors and apply the term - but my question along with naming actors you think qualify is......do you think the term "genius" SHOULD apply to ANY actor or should that term only in film be applied to visionary directors not actors (or any other crafts person)? Or are you more inclined to feel about actors as tools - not geniuses - how Hitchcock felt (or seems to have felt): “I once said that actors are cattle,” he smiled. “But that’s a joke. However, actors are children, and they’re temperamental, and they need to be handled gently and sometimes . . .” he paused for emphasis . . . “slapped. I always talk things over with them in the dressing room before we go on the set. Otherwise, one too often has all the drama on the set and none in the scene.”
quoteinvestigator.com/2013/08/01/all-actors-are-cattlewww.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/genius-actors-of-our-time-409037379803
|
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Oct 29, 2020 14:25:23 GMT
As David Fincher talks about in his latest interview, every film is beholden to so many different disciplines and collaboration is necessary to make a movie. To say only directors can be geniuses when they are beholden to the work of others as well is a misguided view of the filmmaking process. As for the Hitchcock quote, the guy was a masterful self-promoter so I wouldn't expect him to give much credit to the work of his actors, even frequent collaborators, especially given those actors received plenty credit as it is. But Hitchcock always acted as though he did all his work in pre-production with extensive storyboarding when analyses of production notes show he was actually remarkably flexible during production. But saying "I make great films because I work well with others" isn't as self-elevating as "I make great films because I force everyone to my singularly great vision."
|
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Oct 29, 2020 23:48:29 GMT
Some actors have demonstrated/displayed genius. I think of Pacino, Denzel, Oldman, Gosling, DiCaprio, Wock, Bardem, Huppert, Winslet, Bjork, Stanwyck, Vivien Leigh, DDL, Ledger, River Phoenix, etc. Whether or not they are a "genius" has to do with how much that vein gets tapped into, I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Oct 30, 2020 0:43:10 GMT
Ultimately, I believe that actors - and editors, photographers, production designers, composers - are the tools of the director. They may be brilliant at what they do, and directors may hunt them down because of their specific talents. But they are under the direction of a big boss calling the shots and deciding how things should be done.
I've never followed actors, because their performances are only ever as good as what they're given. The writers and directors are the story crafters, and a great actor can do as much as is possible within their confines. The director and writer create those confines, and as such, I can't see how actors can be described as "visionaries." I can't call Jack Lemmon such, or Roger Deakins, or Ennio Morricone. What would they be without something like The Apartment - or BR2049, or Once Upon a Time in the West - to enhance.
|
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Oct 30, 2020 4:36:08 GMT
I am of the school that thinks actors are more analogous to craftsman than artists. Acting usually exists within another medium like film or theater. The director is like the conductor, the screenwriter the composer, and the actors the musicians. There are a few exceptions to this. Obviously a lot of ad-lib heavy comedic actors like Chaplin, Keaton, Sellers, or Robin Williams. The only dramatic actors I'd say transcend this divide are DDL and Brando. That is not necessarily always a compliment, having a random, uncontrollable element in your movie can be detrimental as was at times the case with Brando. " I can't call Jack Lemmon such, or Roger Deakins, or Ennio Morricone. What would they be without something like The Apartment - or BR2049, or Once Upon a Time in the West - to enhance. I disagree on Morricone and film composers because music is art by itself. Just because it's film music does not mean they aren't artists the same as anyone else who writes a piece of music. Not the case with acting, playing charades isn't art, it only becomes art if it's within another artwork. |
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Oct 30, 2020 14:16:15 GMT
Oh honey, is there such a thing?... Uhuh, I'm here aren't I?
Naturally, they asked me to be on this but due to a scheduling conflict I wasn't available (It was my turn to get dressed and go out for more tequila), so I suggested they put Meryl in my place...
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 30, 2020 17:22:17 GMT
I wonder how many people would put a "pre-Brando" dramatic actor as a "genius"? (Cagney? Olivier?) or did genius "start" with him..... Foreign actors - Huppert is one I routinely call a genius, maybe THE genius  ......any American female besides Streep? ...........( Page?) |
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Oct 30, 2020 21:26:09 GMT
I wonder how many people would put a "pre-Brando" dramatic actor as a "genius"? (Cagney? Olivier?) or did genius "start" with him..... Foreign actors - Huppert is one I routinely call a genius, maybe THE genius ......any American female besides Streep? ...........( Page?) Oh honey, I think the Australian female should definitely be given to Judy Davis, without her we wouldn't have Blannie (and her JD imitations) Anna Magnani for the Italian one... Maybe the only one deserving of the term genius: her emotions were always so close to the surface. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2020 1:31:56 GMT
......any American female besides Streep? I mean... Did you really have to ask?   When speaking of Close and Pacino, journalist Christopher Hootan had this to say: "They're a little scary to be around, because you feel they might jump you or blow up at you at any time. They are ticking time bombs." The New York Times went even further when reviewing her performance in Damages: "There is no actor dead or alive as scary as a smiling Glenn Close." |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 31, 2020 7:24:04 GMT
......any American female besides Streep? I mean... Did you really have to ask? When speaking of Close and Pacino, journalist Christopher Hootan had this to say: "They're a little scary to be around, because you feel they might jump you or blow up at you at any time. They are ticking time bombs." They are very similar in a lot of ways.....love 'em and in my bizarre fantasy world I think they love (or at least respect) each other Early in her film career Close actually read for the Pfeiffer part in Scarface which a lot of people don't know (and was great apparently opposite him in the reading according to Oliver Stone - in his recent book). Should have teamed up in something ........grrrrrrrr  |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 31, 2020 10:06:34 GMT
I wonder how many people would put a "pre-Brando" dramatic actor as a "genius"? (Cagney? Olivier?) or did genius "start" with him..... Foreign actors - Huppert is one I routinely call a genius, maybe THE genius ......any American female besides Streep? ...........( Page?) Oh honey, I think the Australian female should definitely be given to Judy Davis, without her we wouldn't have Blannie (and her JD imitations) Anna Magnani for the Italian one... Maybe the only one deserving of the term genius: her emotions were always so close to the surface. ..............and for me Davis is also a great comic actress which is pretty rare on this list (or the names who would come up on this type of list in general male or female) - the difference between actors being able to do comedy and genuinely being capable of excelling at it. Magnani is a great mention here too .........and both remind me also of Gena Rowlands who I think is in some ways the closest Americans have to Magnani maybe ...... |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 1, 2020 10:51:37 GMT
Not yet mentioned and many would argue - and vehemently argue against - Nicolas Cage as a genius.
Ethan Hawke (definitely not a genius  ) says a lot of stupid things about acting and actors......... but sometimes smart things too and he does a good job of articulating the "Cage is a genius!" POV. Though he doesn't use the word itself. For some the most acclaimed actors of the 1980s class - Hanks, Washington, Bridges (arguably 70s class), Spacey, Penn - you could argue none of them could do what Cage has done at times ( Dafoe being the exception of that 1980s class imo). That of course is another part of "genius" - the term not only doesn't reward consistency (very overrated imo for actors/actresses), it actively courts inconsistency .... "I think Nicolas Cage is one of the few people in the history of acting that has really changed [the form],” Hawke told the magazine this week. I mean, he’s a true original—one of the greatest actors ever. His confidence and madness and dedication—you take his top 10 performances and I’d put ‘em up against anybody. And they’re revelatory!"
news.avclub.com/reminder-ethan-hawke-fuckin-loves-nicolas-cage-1828902010 |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 1, 2020 22:04:02 GMT
One I'd pick that sort of combines the two things from the OP "the acting genius" term yet who is completely in service of one director mostly and all the while fulfilling "his" distinct vision .....that's pretty rare I think - that's not how De Niro is seen for example - he's listed as an "acting genius" outside of Scorsese too really ........I'm not sure Ullman (or Rowlands too) is in that same way.....though they are "great" outside of their main directors in film of course.
Liv Ullman |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2020 17:42:46 GMT
I mean... Did you really have to ask? When speaking of Close and Pacino, journalist Christopher Hootan had this to say: "They're a little scary to be around, because you feel they might jump you or blow up at you at any time. They are ticking time bombs." They are very similar in a lot of ways.....love 'em and in my bizarre fantasy world I think they love (or at least respect) each other Early in her film career Close actually read for the Pfeiffer part in Scarface which a lot of people don't know (and was great apparently opposite him in the reading according to Oliver Stone - in his recent book).Should have teamed up in something ........grrrrrrrr Wow... I had no idea - thank you for alerting me to this! Apparently De Palma and Pacino wanted her, too? The producer of the film objected to her because she wasn't "sexy" or "pretty" enough - wonder how he felt about making that call after Fatal Attraction. |
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Nov 5, 2020 13:36:35 GMT
Pfeiffer was perfect for Elvira in Scarface, period.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2020 13:44:23 GMT
Pfeiffer was perfect for Elvira in Scarface, period. I certainly don't disagree. And it's the film that launched her career, so I'm happy she won the role in the end. But you have to realize that the part Close auditioned for was quite different - when the producer insisted on Pfeiffer, Stone re-wrote the character. From his memoir: |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 5, 2020 17:01:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 8, 2020 19:10:31 GMT
The French DePac and like them sometimes co-stars too .......you could argue them as the best actors of the 80s and 90s.....you sometimes see them called "geniuses" beyond just "great actors"....... Auteuil & Depardieu |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 12, 2020 23:33:37 GMT
Another couple types you hear "genius" about - those without a large body of work - Maria Falconetti.........or those who go so far out there that it seems singular yet specific not random...... Isabelle Adjani  |
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Nov 13, 2020 0:08:33 GMT
 Laurette Taylor She seemed to completely stun anyone/everyone who saw her on stage. I recently watched on Vimeo her David O Selznick screen test for The Young In Heart in '38 which is a whole monologue and there's a really graceful and tender quality to her, suggests she may have been wonderful in the movies too. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 13, 2020 0:32:08 GMT
Laurette Taylor She seemed to completely stun anyone/everyone who saw her on stage. I recently watched on Vimeo her David O Selznick screen test for The Young In Heart in '38 which is a whole monologue and there's a really graceful and tender quality to her, suggests she may have been wonderful in the movies too. Interesting sort of genius overlap - Judy Holliday who had a kind of uniqueness at least and maybe genius too almost played Taylor which is kind of cool. In October 1960, Holliday started out-of-town tryouts on the play Laurette based on the life of Laurette Taylor. The show was directed by José Quintero with background music by Elmer Bernstein and produced by Alan Pakula. When Holliday became ill and had to leave the show, it closed in Philadelphia without opening on Broadway.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Holliday
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 9, 2020 20:09:10 GMT
One that I've argued for on this board as an acting genius myself - Vanessa Redgrave who would in many ways embody parts rather than just play them. Instead of "becoming" the character she almost was a magician in how her characters came about. You often couldn't see technique but there was a ton of technique that like a lot of great actors she'd throw away and pull back when she wanted to.  |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 10, 2020 10:56:19 GMT
The rarest thing.......like Judy Holliday - the female comic actor who gets dissed in two ways: gender and genre. With that in mind Madeline Kahn had a kind of genius (like Gene Wilder below) to her in some parts as well where she seemed to suggest past actresses yet go much further out there. If we did a list of the 100 greatest actress she wouldn't make it......but maybe she should....not sure I'd call her a genius especially in the light of the 5 Lipton picked (DePac, Brando, Streep, Chaplin) but she in some ways makes you really think of the application of that word relative to what she did. She could be funny and original often at expense of the script which is pretty rare and when she got a good script.....well she could be singular.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2021 15:36:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 22, 2021 17:31:57 GMT
This is one of the great acting analysis videos .......it gets into a whole acting topic we never discuss : "negative space" that an actor can occupy and play in conception and then communicate to us.........AND how we're often not able to assess it (our problem not the actors). The acting of Rowlands shown here goes beyond style or technique and goes into genuine psychology rather - this video should be added to the "most poetic actors/actress thread" too ..........and I hope Rowlands was included there .........because that's what the "smile" referenced in this video is - clearly "poetic". Almost always the actors who can occupy that "negative space" and skillfully communicate to us are the more exciting and interesting actors and more often the ones who get that "genius" tag as opposed to just being "a great actor" who just gives us what we think we want. |
|
......any American female besides Streep? ...........(Page?)
) says a lot of stupid things about acting and actors......... but sometimes smart things too and he does a good job of articulating the "Cage is a genius!" POV.
