Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,173 
Likes: 1,573
|
Post by Nikan on Feb 5, 2024 10:51:50 GMT
Illustrate where the line lies for you. When is it Henry Fonda in Once Upon a Time... and when is it Tom Hanks in Elvis (just the first thing that came to my mind when somebody tried something different that backfired) ?
|
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Feb 5, 2024 11:21:12 GMT
Simple, when it doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 5, 2024 11:37:41 GMT
It's hard not to just echo what Mr. Snrub says because he got to the root of the matter. It's about what works and what doesn't. As someone who thinks Tom Hanks works in Elvis as the sort of outsized Mephistophelian gremlin rather than an accurate portrayal of the real Colonel Parker, I wouldn't say he fits the bill here because it's clear he and Luhrmann were trying something (the makeup alone is proof of that), and whether you think it worked is up for debate, but I wouldn't say that the inherent casting of Hanks was the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 5, 2024 11:37:46 GMT
Miscast is when no qualities an actor possesses apply to the role - this is often physical (looks or voice or the manner of affect) cast against type is a subversion of those qualities as applied to the role The one I always think of is Diane Keaton in Looking For Mr Goodbar is casting against type .......Keanu Reeves in Dracula is miscast* This is another myth in general btw - the best actors seek to be miscast and attempt to transcend it .......it isn't that an actor can do anything - it s almost NEVER that - it's that the actor can push the margins of talent against themselves...........there are a whole lot of things Humphrey Bogart couldn't do......but you can certainly argue Bogartt as doing something very few American actors could ever hope to  |
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,173
Likes: 1,573
|
Post by Nikan on Feb 5, 2024 12:58:59 GMT
As someone who thinks Tom Hanks works in Elvis as the sort of outsized Mephistophelian gremlin rather than an accurate portrayal of the real Colonel Parker, I wouldn't say he fits the bill here because it's clear he and Luhrmann were trying something (the makeup alone is proof of that), and whether you think it worked is up for debate, but I wouldn't say that the inherent casting of Hanks was the problem. I get what you're saying about their possible aim, Luhrmann has done a similiar thing with his cast in Moulin' Rouge (when it was more "fresh" to see such a thing too); where Kidman, Roxburgh, McGregor, Broadbent and the rest all play to his song. I just don't get that zaniness from Butler as Elvis, his mother, his wife, other minor bad figures in the movie even...it's really only Hanks who stands out like that. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 5, 2024 13:20:20 GMT
As someone who thinks Tom Hanks works in Elvis as the sort of outsized Mephistophelian gremlin rather than an accurate portrayal of the real Colonel Parker, I wouldn't say he fits the bill here because it's clear he and Luhrmann were trying something (the makeup alone is proof of that), and whether you think it worked is up for debate, but I wouldn't say that the inherent casting of Hanks was the problem. I get what you're saying about their possible aim, Luhrmann has done a similiar thing with his cast in Moulin' Rouge (when it was more "fresh" to see such a thing too); where Kidman, Roxburgh, McGregor, Broadbent and the rest all play to his song. I just don't get that zaniness from Butler as Elvis, his mother, his wife, other minor bad figures in the movie even...it's really only Hanks who stands out like that. I chalk that up to the weird way that Luhrmann frames the story -- Parker is really more of the focal pivot than Elvis is. It's like watching a movie about a demon telling the story about how he corrupted this young talent and led him on the pathway of destruction. Which actually would've been a fantastic and fresh way to do a movie like this, but no one else was really in on that and were more concerned with making a straightforward depiction of Elvis's life. The whole movie is a tonal mishmash between a po-faced biopic of Presley and a Faustian commentary, and unfortunately it leaves Hanks out to dry because Baz fails to commit one way or the other. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 6, 2024 2:56:16 GMT
It's hard not to just echo what Mr. Snrub says because he got to the root of the matter. It's about what works and what doesn't. As someone who thinks Tom Hanks works in Elvis as the sort of outsized Mephistophelian gremlin rather than an accurate portrayal of the real Colonel Parker, I wouldn't say he fits the bill here because it's clear he and Luhrmann were trying something (the makeup alone is proof of that), and whether you think it worked is up for debate, but I wouldn't say that the inherent casting of Hanks was the problem. I was just talking about the possibility of Hanks playing Iago in Othello (he's said he wants to in the past) , but it's things like his Elvis performance that worry me. I think when Hanks tries to go "bad", it can veer into cartoonish. Maybe it's just not in his DNA. |
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,173
Likes: 1,573
|
Post by Nikan on Feb 6, 2024 8:30:04 GMT
It's hard not to just echo what Mr. Snrub says because he got to the root of the matter. It's about what works and what doesn't. As someone who thinks Tom Hanks works in Elvis as the sort of outsized Mephistophelian gremlin rather than an accurate portrayal of the real Colonel Parker, I wouldn't say he fits the bill here because it's clear he and Luhrmann were trying something (the makeup alone is proof of that), and whether you think it worked is up for debate, but I wouldn't say that the inherent casting of Hanks was the problem. I was just talking about the possibility of Hanks playing Iago in Othello (he's said he wants to in the past) , but it's things like his Elvis performance that worry me. I think when Hanks tries to go "bad", it can veer into cartoonish. Maybe it's just not in his DNA. There is a "timeline" in Cloud Atlas in which it took one scene for me to be convinced he can be enjoyable as a (albiet silly) thugish type... he might be good for this sort of thing (there is always that "half" of his character in Road to Perdition)... why he never goes about it though, I don't know. |
|
rhodoraonline
Badass
Your Generosity Hides Something Dirtier and Meaner
Posts: 1,026 
Likes: 504
|
Post by rhodoraonline on Feb 6, 2024 16:36:17 GMT
This is how I see it:
Say The Rock is cast to play a very sensitive poet. Now the first we'll hear of it is obviously miscast. But then, when the movie comes out, it will all depend on his ability to pull off the characterization regardless of his physique/look. If he did a good job, we'll settle on "cast against type," but if he fails or struggles then the miscast label sticks.
|
|
