|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 29, 2020 18:19:02 GMT
That's fine, but I don't really believe in advocacy in list-making. I just believe in saying what I think, and only what I think. I like Gosling alot, and think he's a genius actor, but if I'm making a list of the top 100 performances of all time, you best believe Pacino as Michael Corleone will be above every Gosling performance thus far. I don't care if everyone's already seen and loves The Godfather/The Godfather Part II. My putting Gosling in Lars and the Real Girl or Gosling in First Man or whatever (performances I nominate/win respectively for Oscars) over Pacino in those films is an insult to Pacino's achievement, however much internet traffic it generates for me. To me the first thing for any critic or pundit is being honest with your audience. It's more important than writing ability or even your knowledge of whatever subject matter you're commenting on. I just don't see the value of criticism otherwise. I have obscure movies I'd rate very highly on all time lists, but that's because I genuinely like them that much. I think that was also the case in the Vertigo and Douglas Sirk examples as well. They weren't championed just for the sake of being contrarian. The issue here is that I seriously doubt A.O. Scott really thinks Keanu and McCarthy have been better actors over the past 20 years than Streep or Blanchett, to name a couple of many. They wanted a list they knew would be popular on the internet and generate clicks. Pandering to your audience defeats the purpose of criticism. Edit- Another thing here is that even if you're going to take an advocacy perspective, a lot of these people don't even need it. Keanu, McCarthy, and MBJ's movies make far more money than most the people we're complaining about being left off. That's why I said this has more to do with pandering. It's telling your audience the greatness of things they've already seen and liked to win their approval. As I noted before, that wasn't what my early experiences with film criticism were and it was for the better since it resulted in me watching things I never would have watched otherwise. Choosing Keanu is the opposite of pandering. No matter how many people may like him, they knew full well he'd be a controversial pick. Pandering is a list made up of nothing but safe choices like Meryl or Gosling (they played it very safe with the top 3) . Everyone would lap that shit up and tell them what sound choices they made. No fuss, no drama. Still, people do genuinely like Reeves and think there is something special about him as a screen presence. I belatedly acknowledged that last year in the actors and their impact on genre thread. I don't neccesarily see it as an outright contrarian stance. People have genuinely been changing their opinion about the guy over the years. Perhaps they ( Scott/Dargis) really believe he is much greater than been previously credited for, and see this as a genuine course correction. Reeves in many ways is really no more an odd pick for a "greatest actor" list than John Wayne or Clint Eastwood and a whole host of limited, but extraordinarily iconic movie stars who have a whole host of technical limitations, but also an ineffable, indefinable quality about them as screen presences that 99% of screen actors will never posses, or be as impactful or memorable with. To this day, I don't even know how good an actor I consider Wayne to be (some think he's one of the greatest actors ever. I don't, but he has certainly done enough iconic work for me not to dismiss that view out of hand). He is as limited as Keanu, if not moreso. Watching Wayne try to play Ghengis Khan in The Conquerer is painful. It's as bad as screen acting gets. Yet put the guy in a ten gallon hat, and he is good to go. I'm never shocked to see Wayne on greatest actor lists, even if it's very arguable whether he technically was even a very good actor. But I do know that when he isn't miscast, he's pretty watchable and even domimating screen presence in many things. So maybe he is a "great actor". Who the fuck really knows For many years, many serious critics have consistently put actors like Eastwood and Wayne above literally thousands of actors who clearly have more technical ability and emotional range than them. It's very clear when actors like that routinely beat out people like Fredric March or Jason Robards on serious "greatest actor" lists, that technical range and ability is not always a criteria in how critics champion actors. It sometimes is, but they discard it whenever they feel like too. So to me, this is absolutely nothing new in criticism
|
|
|
Post by fiosnasiob on Nov 29, 2020 18:46:09 GMT
As you said, looks like a lot of people in the industry paid attention to this list. I wonder if some of the reps for high profile actors/actresses that notably didn’t make the list contacted Scott/Dargis and said “hey, what about my client?” Of course people in the industry are paying attention to the list (and many are clearly taking it very seriously, just as many are free to dismiss it. Like pretty much anything). It's the New York Times. You think Isabelle Huppert would have bothered responding to World Of Reel (whatever that is ) if they called her the 2nd Greatest Actor of The Century ? She ain't got time for that shit.LOL! Every news agency covering or reporting on the list is calling it prestigious. Whether you agree with it or not, that is the power of the NYT. It is what it is. Saoirse Ronan is one of the most critically acclaimed and best (young) actresses of the last 15 years or so, she may not be totally worthy of the 10th spot but she's worthy of being on the list imo. Co-sign with countjohn about Brooklyn, she's fantastic in this film.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 29, 2020 19:24:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by fiosnasiob on Nov 29, 2020 20:42:36 GMT
At least I hope that I'm Aamir Khan (who could have been on the list). But Idiots for talking about the actors who deserves to be on the list and being happy that our favorite is at the first place ? Since the beginning you are beyond salty and desperate because of Denzel being the number 1 (with no hesitation or debate to quote A. O. Scott) of this Top 25 greatest actors of the 21st century, you can't help it, it's too hard to accept. You keep saying that it's fine but you try everything to sh/t on list again and over again, waiting desesperatly that someone post something negative to be able to quote him and add something negative again (you did it three times in a row with the slighly immature Franklin, just like you were doing with Ray in the past, you use their relative immaturity for your sake). And us the Denzel's fans being happy and having some fun....it's waaaaay too much, you are burning from the inside. No ones of the big guys here who find the list bad/awful give a shit anymore or show anywhere near the level of frustration you are showing, they disagreed with the list, say what they had to say and they moved on to something else like any normal person would do but you, you simply can't act normal, it's waaaay to hard, too deep. Almost 20 years of film forums and I have probably never seen this level of despair and frustration over an actor getting the highest kind of praises, it's scary. I never waste my time with you and I shouldn't have wasted it this time again because at this point everybody on this forum with half a brain and at least one eye is aware of your completely insane attitudes and that's my main purpose when answering to you but it's way too obvious now. So keep doing it, keep burying yourself in this madness. I hope someday you will be able to get some help tho.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 29, 2020 20:54:06 GMT
The 3 idiots were the NY Times, Dargis and Scott
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,724
Likes: 4,833
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Nov 30, 2020 3:52:07 GMT
Looks like the New York Times has gotten more movie news/blog sites in the mood to create their own lists of best actors of the 21st century. Roger Friedman of Showbiz 411, who's been in the industry a long time as an insider, wrote an article putting his own list up:
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 30, 2020 21:52:22 GMT
Looks like the New York Times has gotten more movie news/blog sites in the mood to create their own lists of best actors of the 21st century. Roger Friedman of Showbiz 411, who's been in the industry a long time as an insider, wrote an article putting his own list up:
Very much the kind of alternative list I'd expect from someone like Friedman. He is very much a long-time Hollywood insider, and his taste in films and actors veer almost totally in that direction. He probably would never watch a film with subtitles unless it was nominated by the Golden Globes . Say what you will about NYT/Dargis/Scott, but they will have seen a much broader selection of films outside of the Hollywood purview, and that's why they could confidently select some of the less well known in Hollywood, non-English speaking actors that they did. So it's a much more interesting list. I am slightly shocked that Friedman doesn't have DiCaprio in his top 25. I expected someone as Hollywood as Friedman to be fully on board the Leo train. Same goes for Bale as well.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Nov 30, 2020 22:47:02 GMT
Looks like the New York Times has gotten more movie news/blog sites in the mood to create their own lists of best actors of the 21st century. Roger Friedman of Showbiz 411, who's been in the industry a long time as an insider, wrote an article putting his own list up:
Very much the kind of alternative list I'd expect from someone like Friedman. He is very much a long-time Hollywood insider, and his taste in films and actors veer almost totally in that direction. He probably would never watch a film with subtitles unless it was nominated by the Golden Globes . Say what you will about NYT/Dargis/Scott, but they will have seen a much broader selection of films outside of the Hollywood purview, and that's why they could confidently select some of the less well known in Hollywood, non-English speaking actors that they did. So it's a much more interesting list. I am slightly shocked that Friedman doesn't have DiCaprio in his top 25. I expected someone as Hollywood as Friedman to be fully on board the Leo train. Same goes for Bale as well. Yeah, I think Friedman's list is very respectable, but he's very much an "essential mainstream Hollywood" kinda dude, so there's little in the way of surprises there. I do have fond memories of following his Oscar predictions though, I'm pretty sure he was one of the first people who was confident that Oprah would win for The Butler, which well we all know how that turned out .
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,724
Likes: 4,833
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Nov 30, 2020 22:54:12 GMT
Looks like the New York Times has gotten more movie news/blog sites in the mood to create their own lists of best actors of the 21st century. Roger Friedman of Showbiz 411, who's been in the industry a long time as an insider, wrote an article putting his own list up:
Very much the kind of alternative list I'd expect from someone like Friedman. He is very much a long-time Hollywood insider, and his taste in films and actors veer almost totally in that direction. He probably would never watch a film with subtitles unless it was nominated by the Golden Globes . Say what you will about NYT/Dargis/Scott, but they will have seen a much broader selection of films outside of the Hollywood purview, and that's why they could confidently select some of the less well known in Hollywood, non-English speaking actors that they did. So it's a much more interesting list. I am slightly shocked that Friedman doesn't have DiCaprio in his top 25. I expected someone as Hollywood as Friedman to be fully on board the Leo train. Same goes for Bale as well. Yep, he had plenty great things to say about DiCaprio too in his addendum after his list but couldn't find room for him in the Top 25. As you said Bale, and I'm surprised even a recently Oscar-minted Brad Pitt didn't get a mention. But his list is probably alot more like what the movie blog sites would expect.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 1, 2020 7:43:21 GMT
Rob Morgan thanking the NYT for his inclusion on this list. Seems very humbled by it. Having seen enough of his work, I think he probably has a Oscar in his future (likely supporting, as I don't expect he'll get a ton of lead opportunities as a character actor. But you never know) http://instagr.am/p/CIBGplqDqC8
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,724
Likes: 4,833
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Dec 1, 2020 14:13:02 GMT
Rob Morgan thanking the NYT for his inclusion on this list. Seems very humbled by it. Having seen enough of his work, I think he probably has a Oscar in his future (likely supporting, as I don't expect he'll get a ton of lead opportunities as a character actor. But you never know) http://instagr.am/p/CIBGplqDqC8 He’s Turk Barrett Baby!! Cool that 2 of the top 25 (Him and Ali) were on Luke Cage.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 1, 2020 14:24:48 GMT
Rob Morgan thanking the NYT for his inclusion on this list. Seems very humbled by it. Having seen enough of his work, I think he probably has a Oscar in his future (likely supporting, as I don't expect he'll get a ton of lead opportunities as a character actor. But you never know) http://instagr.am/p/CIBGplqDqC8 He’s Turk Barrett Baby!! Cool that 2 of the top 25 (Him and Ali) were on Luke Cage. Good catch ! Turk was such a great side character in the Netflix Marvel shows. I think he was only supposed to be on season 1 of Daredevil, but the producers loved what Morgan did with the character so much, that they pretty much made him the interconnective tissue (well him and Rosario Dawson) of the Netflix Marvel shows. He put in appearance as Turk in every show they did. That is how an exceptional character actor makes a mark in what should be a throwaway part. Turk actually became a fan favorite character and everyone looked forward to him turning up in the shows!
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,724
Likes: 4,833
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Dec 1, 2020 14:30:56 GMT
He’s Turk Barrett Baby!! Cool that 2 of the top 25 (Him and Ali) were on Luke Cage. Good catch ! Turk was such a great side character in the Netflix Marvel shows. I think he was only supposed to be on season 1 of Daredevil, but the producers loved what Morgan did with the character so much, that they pretty much made him the interconnective tissue (well him and Rosario Dawson) of the Netflix Marvel shows. He put in appearance as Turk in every show they did. That is how an exceptional character actor makes a mark in what should be a throwaway part. Turk actually became a fan favorite character and everyone looked forward to him turning up in the shows! Yep he was on every one including The Defenders. I remember during one of the barbershop scenes in Luke Cage Season 1 going “is that Turk playing chess over there” lol..man was everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by fiosnasiob on Dec 1, 2020 21:59:46 GMT
Rob Morgan, humbled and hungry for more, that's how it works. Has Zel talked about it somewhere ? Dude is old school in everything, even with social medias, no Insta, no twitter, nothing. Not surprising tho. An a lot of fun Rob Morgan as Brooklyn crime Boss Lomatic in Full Circle (2013).
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,724
Likes: 4,833
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Dec 1, 2020 23:13:44 GMT
Rob Morgan, humbled and hungry for more, that's how it works. Has Zel talked about it somewhere ? Dude is old school in everything, even with social medias, no Insta, no twitter, nothing. Not surprising tho. An a lot of fun Rob Morgan as Brooklyn crime Boss Lomatic in Full Circle (2013). That Full Circle movie poster looks like the cover of a Grand Theft Auto video game..LOL
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 1, 2020 23:34:24 GMT
Rob Morgan, humbled and hungry for more, that's how it works. Has Zel talked about it somewhere ? Dude is old school in everything, even with social medias, no Insta, no twitter, nothing. Not surprising tho. An a lot of fun Rob Morgan as Brooklyn crime Boss Lomatic in Full Circle (2013). Zel obviously knows about it, since it's the New York Times ( and he did Viola Davis write-up for the piece). As you say, he is old school, so he likely won't comment unless asked about it, but I'm sure he is extremely pleased with being ranked no.1. He knows the weight and prestige the NYT carries, and this endorsement is a very big thing for his GOAT candidacy.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 3, 2020 16:22:07 GMT
Damn. This list was really a big deal in France. Isabelle Huppert has been profiled and interviewed on French TV for being included in it at #2.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Dec 3, 2020 17:50:11 GMT
French people really bought into this crap! LOOOOOL!!
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,724
Likes: 4,833
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Dec 3, 2020 18:45:07 GMT
Damn. This list was really a big deal in France. Isabelle Huppert has been profiled and interviewed on French TV for being included in it at #2. Damn..they sure did..carving out a whole segment for it. I don't understand what they're saying but they sound excited..lol!
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,724
Likes: 4,833
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Dec 4, 2020 22:40:50 GMT
The New York Times Insider did a follow-up Q&A article with Dargis and Scott to see how the reception has been to their list, some of the disagreements they had, and wanting to represent performances from around the globe. Here are some of the interesting tidbits from the article: Here's the full article: www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/insider/best-actors-list.html
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Dec 5, 2020 1:05:44 GMT
I'd ask them point blank "How is Oscar Isaac or Michael B. Jordan a greater actor than DiCaprio in the 2000s?" Then when they start stuttering, I'd hang up.
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,724
Likes: 4,833
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Dec 5, 2020 3:44:29 GMT
I'd ask them point blank "How is Oscar Isaac or Michael B. Jordan a greater actor than DiCaprio in the 2000s?" Then when they start stuttering, I'd hang up. I’m sure they might have an email contact address. You can put “NYT 25 Greatest Actors: What the Fuck?” in the subject line..lol
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 5, 2020 8:23:35 GMT
I'd ask them point blank "How is Oscar Isaac or Michael B. Jordan a greater actor than DiCaprio in the 2000s?" Then when they start stuttering, I'd hang up. Pretty much..........I'd ask about the arrogance within their list and actually in this followup segment you also see it.........so DDL's performance in Nine knocks him down a few pegs but Keanu Reeves performance in ______________ doesn't knock him below 4th? Then there's the writeups themselves which go out of their way to mention race....... Washington's writeup is literally about "the racism of the industry" (an industry that you know Dargis & Scott are by extension "in" and........(I guess) support.......um, racists !)..............the way they lecture to their readership about seeing foreign films instead of thinking through that question........I love Servillo but there's no reason why Servillo is there and not Niels Arestrup in their writing unless they felt Italy isn't represented and France got 2 females or something....... ..........and that the heat they got over Melissa McCarthy is indicative of "the bias against comedy" instead of them, you know maybe not ever making a case for Melissa McCarthy. I made fun of that pick but it's also not advocated in a convincing way even if you like her. It's like I said before - it's the "est" at the end that make people scoff at the list so much - if they just said 25 great actors we like who define the 2000s in movies everyone would be more cool with it but they were itching to provoke a fight and a politically correct/inclusive debate so it's no wonder they're pretty defensive anyway.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Dec 5, 2020 13:01:04 GMT
I'll be honest, lots of people are not upset about a comedic actress being in the list, they are upset about Melissa McCarthy being there.
|
|
|
Post by fiosnasiob on Dec 5, 2020 20:04:57 GMT
Damn. This list was really a big deal in France. Isabelle Huppert has been profiled and interviewed on French TV for being included in it at #2. Damn..they sure did..carving out a whole segment for it. I don't understand what they're saying but they sound excited..lol! LoL, but here is your French savior to translate it. Madame Huppert basically say that she was very surprised, she didn't expect it at all but it makes her very happy. She added that it's also a good surprise for the French and European cinema as well, it shows that American (critics) can be open and interested in a cinema that isn't their, it's very encouraging. It somewhat goes with the "Expand your horizons" quote of Dargis in this Q&A article you posted.
|
|