|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 8, 2018 15:49:35 GMT
Interesting observation from Carnahan (who directed Narc, a film often considered to be an even grittier cousin of Training Day) on the eve of the Oscars, after watching Denzel in Roman J Israel, Esq;
Joe CarnahanVerified account @carnojoe Mar 4 More And Denzel Washington is our greatest living actor.
Period.
He wipes the floor with the rest of the field.
Feels like Carnahan's view is becoming more widely held within the industry.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Mar 8, 2018 15:51:58 GMT
Everyone's entitled to their wrong opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Christ_Ian_Bale on Mar 8, 2018 16:05:37 GMT
If not, he's damn close to it.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 8, 2018 16:06:16 GMT
Everyone's entitled to their wrong opinions. Maybe. But I'm glad it's an opinion that's being more widely and openly acknowledged, as I think Washington has deserved that recognition for quite awhile. As an aside, I thought it was hilarious how he was seated next to Streep for the Oscars (who is maybe his female counterpart), but only turned up just before his category was announced (probably out of respect to Oldman). Washington's clearly over the whole awards thing, but they are going to keep nominating him anyway.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 8, 2018 16:11:15 GMT
Well, here's to hoping Carnahan (one of the best action directors working today, and for my money, an extremely entertaining screenwriter if one reads his stage directions) can work with Denzel. Imagine a Smokin' Aces-type ensemble romp where Washington is on the run from the likes of Carnahan's unstable stable: Pine, Bateman, Grillo, Badge Dale.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 8, 2018 16:13:31 GMT
I have so many reactions but I'll just list two:
1. Did Al Pacino/Daniel Day Lewis/Sergio Castellitto/Insert Name of Another actor here die?
2. So says the writer of Death Wish.....
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 8, 2018 16:21:06 GMT
I have so many reactions but I'll just list two: 1. Did Al Pacino/Daniel Day Lewis/Sergio Castellitto/Insert Name of Another actor here die? Yeah, huge fan of Al. He was probably my favorite actor once, when I was much younger, had less options available and knew less about acting as a craft. But he has not been in the forefront of the "greatest living actor" conversation for a long time, imho. An iconic actor, with a wonderful legacy (excluding a lot of the last 20 years), but Washington, purely as an actor, overtook him a long time ago. It's not that close, though I'm sure you understandably feel otherwise. I can agree on Day-Lewis though. He's in the mix.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 8, 2018 16:45:05 GMT
A more interesting Denzel discussion exists on his Iceman Cometh
A more interesting Pacino discussion exists based on his current film tribute (full career)
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 8, 2018 16:50:00 GMT
Well, this thread is about Carnahans tweet (and the discourse regarding that tweet/opinion).
I'm sure those other threads are very nice, but this thread isn't specifically about Washington's play (or Pacino at all to be honest, unless he brought up in conversation).
All can exist seperate of each other, I think.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Mar 8, 2018 16:52:22 GMT
I feel like Denzel will get the Streep treatment from here on out.
Get nominated for anything and everyone will praise the bejesus outta them whenever they can. *motions for Meryl to stand*
|
|
|
Post by Sullivan on Mar 8, 2018 17:37:30 GMT
Everyone's entitled to their wrong opinions. Maybe. But I'm glad it's an opinion that's being more widely and openly acknowledged, as I think Washington has deserved that recognition for quite awhile. As an aside, I thought it was hilarious how he was seated next to Streep for the Oscars (who is maybe his female counterpart), but only turned up just before his category was announced (probably out of respect to Oldman). Washington's clearly over the whole awards thing, but they are going to keep nominating him anyway. I thought something like that had happened. All of a sudden I saw him on my screen and I was like "was he there the whole time?" I like that about him tho, every time they pan to his face on any award show, he seems to not give a damn, but he's always there. It shows people/events that he respects them for nominating him. That is huge in my opinion, because i'm pretty sure that stuff (not giving a damn, speaking out, or not coming at all) cost Phoenix (insert anyone with that kind of attitude) a nomination or two.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 17:48:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Mar 8, 2018 17:50:40 GMT
He's not exactly wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Mar 8, 2018 18:00:05 GMT
Love Denzel & Carnahan's films . It'd be cool to see them work together someday
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 8, 2018 18:19:38 GMT
I feel like Denzel will get the Streep treatment from here on out. Get nominated for anything and everyone will praise the bejesus outta them whenever they can. *motions for Meryl to stand* Well it's interesting to note that the last two Best Actor Winners, *specifically* gave him a shout-out in their acceptance speeches. Casey Affleck was all like "Denzel taught me how to act", and Oldman made sure to namecheck Denzel at the end. That's the type of reverence Streep holds. I thought Day-Lewis was more or less up there as well (with Streep), but Denzel may have the edge now in pure respect. As much as actors love Day-Lewis, I don't think he could have gotten nominated for a film that got the critical and box office reception that Roman J Israel, Esq did. So you may well be right. They won't be nominating him for genre action stuff like The Equalizer 2 though, but he's a major threat for any hallfway serious drama. Or even a comedy with "prestige" trappings (I dunno, like a Coen Brothers or Jordan Peele comedy). The current rise of the oscar calibre black auteur is probably also going to benefit Washington a lot with the Oscars going forward. He's a bucket list actor for many of them, and they will want to check off working with him. Ryan Coogler, Steve McQueen, Barry Jenkins, Jordan Peele etc.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 8, 2018 18:37:34 GMT
I feel like Denzel will get the Streep treatment from here on out. Get nominated for anything and everyone will praise the bejesus outta them whenever they can. *motions for Meryl to stand* Well it's interesting to note that the last two Best Actor Winners, *specifically* gave him a shout-out in their acceptance speeches. Casey Affleck was all like "Denzel taught me how to act", and Oldman made sure to namecheck Denzel at the end. That's the type of reverence Streep holds. I thought Day-Lewis was more or less up there as well (with Streep), but Denzel may have the edge now in pure respect. As much as actors love Day-Lewis, I don't think he could have gotten nominated for a film that got the critical and box office reception that Roman J Israel, Esq did. So you may well be right. They won't be nominating him for genre action stuff like The Equalizer 2 though, but he's a major threat for any hallfway serious drama. Or even a comedy with "prestige" trappings (I dunno, like a Coen Brothers or Jordan Peele comedy). The current rise of the oscar calibre black auteur is also going to benefit Washington a lot with the Oscars going forward. He's a bucket list actor for many of them, and they will want to check off working with him. Ryan Coogler, Steve McQueen, Jordan Peele etc. Washington has become something of the senior statesman of male actors now, and Affleck name-checked him as a way not just to acknowledge him as being a great actor but also his closest competition that year (and if you ask me, it also felt like a way for him to "kiss up" to him to obfuscate the scandal surrounding him; Denzel definitely didn't look particularly comfortable when he was called out). And Oldman was shouting out his "dear friend" who was sitting right in front of him. Washington's career is the sort that many actors would want to emulate: to be able to go from weighty Oscar dramas to popcorn flicks to Broadway whenever he wants. Day-Lewis's career isn't exactly one that most would want to emulate if they hope to achieve constant A-list status; he is an anomaly in that respect. He's regarded by many as being the greatest actor, but if one wants an actor to model their career trajectory upon, his is most certainly not the one to copy if they hope to live a life of extreme luxury. Although with that said, Day-Lewis's selectivity should be looked at as an example to maintain a consistent body of work.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 8, 2018 19:02:33 GMT
Well it's interesting to note that the last two Best Actor Winners, *specifically* gave him a shout-out in their acceptance speeches. Casey Affleck was all like "Denzel taught me how to act", and Oldman made sure to namecheck Denzel at the end. That's the type of reverence Streep holds. I thought Day-Lewis was more or less up there as well (with Streep), but Denzel may have the edge now in pure respect. As much as actors love Day-Lewis, I don't think he could have gotten nominated for a film that got the critical and box office reception that Roman J Israel, Esq did. So you may well be right. They won't be nominating him for genre action stuff like The Equalizer 2 though, but he's a major threat for any hallfway serious drama. Or even a comedy with "prestige" trappings (I dunno, like a Coen Brothers or Jordan Peele comedy). The current rise of the oscar calibre black auteur is also going to benefit Washington a lot with the Oscars going forward. He's a bucket list actor for many of them, and they will want to check off working with him. Ryan Coogler, Steve McQueen, Jordan Peele etc. Washington has become something of the senior statesman of male actors now, and Affleck name-checked him as a way not just to acknowledge him as being a great actor but also his closest competition that year (and if you ask me, it also felt like a way for him to "kiss up" to him to obfuscate the scandal surrounding him; Denzel definitely didn't look particularly comfortable when he was called out). And Oldman was shouting out his "dear friend" who was sitting right in front of him. Washington's career is the sort that many actors would want to emulate: to be able to go from weighty Oscar dramas to popcorn flicks to Broadway whenever he wants. Day-Lewis's career isn't exactly one that most would want to emulate if they hope to achieve constant A-list status; he is an anomaly in that respect. He's regarded by many as being the greatest actor, but if one wants an actor to model their career trajectory upon, his is most certainly not the one to copy if they hope to live a life of extreme luxury. Although with that said, Day-Lewis's selectivity should be looked at as an example to maintain a consistent body of work. You make a lot of really good points here. In regards to Affleck and Oldman..... I don't think there was any ulterior motive in Affleck namechecking Washington, beyond old-fashioned hero-worship. I think Washington is genuinely his main acting idol and inspiration (I know the rest of the Boston crew in brother Ben and Damon used to often talk years ago in interviews about how they religiously memorised monologues from Washington's movies like Glory and Malcolm X to perfect their own craft). Affleck also was talking about Washington being his idol in almost every other speech he made during the season, not just the Oscars. I don't think you can take Oldman's "dear friend" statement too literally either. It just sounds like a sweet, "Luvvie" way to acknowledge someone he deeply admires and respects, but also happens have worked with before, so has some relationship with. I cannot imagine that prior to this Oscar season, that Washington or Oldman would have even have had a single conversation in the last 8 years, since the press junket for Book Of Eli ended. Washington rarely forms close friendships with co-stars, and their is zero evidence over the years that he broke the mould with Oldman. They probably just fell back into a comfortable rhythm after seeing each other again this season at award shows. But I doubt they'll be texting each other now the season is over. But yeah, Oldman didn't shout out Denzel because they are tight "besties", because they aren't. You are right that Washington does have an ideal career for many actors. A lot of serious actors don't care about extreme luxury though, so a Day-Lewis style career where you make more than enough to be able to take years off working, then jump right back into the saddle with Spielberg or Scorsese, is kind of a dream as well. Oddly enough, I feel that every one of the nominated actors probably would have given Washington some sort of direct shout-out on the podium if they managed to win.....except for Day-Lewis (ie, both Chalamet and Kaaluya this season have talked a lot about not believing they are nominated with Washington, and have a lot of that extreme hero worship going on).
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 8, 2018 19:58:52 GMT
You make a lot of really good points here. In regards to Affleck and Oldman..... I don't think there was any ulterior motive in Affleck namechecking Washington, beyond old-fashioned hero-worship. I think Washington is genuinely his main acting idol and inspiration (I know the rest of the Boston crew in brother Ben and Damon used to often talk years ago in interviews about how they religiously memorised monologues from Washington's movies like Glory and Malcolm X to perfect their own craft). Affleck also was talking about Washington being his idol in almost every other speech he made during the season, not just the Oscars. Oh, I'm sure Affleck absolutely respects and idolizes Washington. What actor wouldn't? It's just that his speech was so bloody awkward, at the height of the scrutiny he was under, and Washington looked really uncomfortable, and it felt like that particular shout-out was trying to curry a little bit of favor. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that's how it looked to me. Yeah, Washington has made it clear he doesn't have too many friends in the business, but he seemed far more chuffed about Oldman winning and generally being involved in the awards season than he has in the past. Maybe they're cordial with each other and nothing more, but Washington seemed uncharacteristically pleased in the audience, rather than the intense "I got other places I'd rather be" look he generally wears at awards shows. They may not talk constantly, but it seems to me there's a bit more to their relationship than what one typically sees from Washington. Again, maybe I'm reading too much into it. Oh yeah, Day-Lewis's career is the artist's dream: work only when you feel inspired, choose only the best to work with, and make every single film release "an event." But if you're a working actor who also wants to be an A-list headliner, then Washington's the man to emulate. I'm sure they would've. Day-Lewis doesn't generally do that except in the rarest of circumstances (Phoenix, Ledger), but he probably still would've shouted out the other nominees in general. The young'ns would've definitely fallen over themselves to shout out Washington, Oldman and Day-Lewis by name, though, I'm almost certain of that.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 8, 2018 22:07:32 GMT
"Although with that said, Day-Lewis's selectivity should be looked at as an example to maintain a consistent body of work." We have talked about this before stephen (and it's still a good talk my friend ) but why would an actor ever want this other than for ego? I agree DDL, the greatest working actor to me after Phantom Thread clearly imo, has a system that works for him but let me give an example and indulge me, let me use Pacino whose lack of selectivity is clearly a problem. In the last 20 years - the worst 20 years of his career - he's still been noticeably good or better than that - great a few times even with Paterno pending - probably 10 times (AiA, Merchant of Venice, The Humbling, Manglehorn, Danny Collins, Phil Spector, YDK Jack, Insomnia, The Insider, Donnie Brasco, say). A lot of actors would kill to have that very good or great performance on a pace of every two years. In the last 20 years DDL has only made 7 films total - The Boxer, GONY, Ballad of Jack and Rose, TWBB, Nine, Lincoln, Phantom Thread Now, I'm not going to argue Pacino's 10 "beat" DDL's 7 (they don't) but DDL's 7 appear greater too because there's nothing else. Pacino's last 20 years appear worse, because he's in a lot of crap in there too. But neither is true - what if Pacino only did those 10 roles? There'd be a lot less talk about his decline and the very good+ work would still be exactly the same. It's a lie - why should flops be looked upon as "equal" to good work (unless the flops specifically reveal an acting limitation, Pacino has those too like Revolution etc.) Essentially selectivity exists for people to misunderstand, misinterpret, misjudge or rate the actor incorrectly - the same way they do box office or Oscar nominations - so to me there's never anything great to being as selective as DDL has been........it's a career of missed opportunities that runs parallel to his greatness. That's the price for what he's done, and it is a price.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 8, 2018 22:58:11 GMT
If you're not going to be super-selective like Day-Lewis, then you need to be extremely consistent like Washington (or Streep) at the highest level. And still be able to surprise. That's why so many of these old guard types have fallen away in the greatest living actor conversation. The prolificness and lack of selectivity exposes their weaknesses quite harshly.
Pacino cannot surprise anyone anymore. He can play Joe Paterno or Phil Spector or whomever. And he can do a fine job of it, in relative terms. He's a compentent professional. But there's no new rhythms or unexpected detours to be found in his performances. The old nugget Brando gave about an actor only having so many faces applies strongly to Pacino (and DeNiro). He does what he can, but has run out of ideas. I'll admit that Washington was very much in danger (as a prolific actor) of falling into the same rut as Pacino and DeNiro. Where as good as he was, you could almost predict exactly how he'd approach a performance.
Fences and Roman J Israel, Esq changed that. Something has lit a fire under Washington. Maybe competitive spirit provided by contemporaries like Day-Lewis. But the stylistic risks in both performances, the technical audacity in both performances....it's breathtaking, high-wire shit that could go badly wrong in the hands of an actor less brilliant and gifted. Washington, at a point in his career where most esteemed and prolific actors are happy to rest on their laurels, has once more discovered the element of surprise. It makes him one of the most potent and vital actors still working, instead of a legend past his best.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 8, 2018 23:18:46 GMT
If you're not going to be super-selective like Day-Lewis, then you need to be extremely consistent like Washington (or Streep) at the highest level. And still be able to surprise. That's why so many of these old guard types have fallen away in the greatest living actor conversation. The prolificness and lack of selectivity exposes their weaknesses quite harshly. Pacino cannot surprise anyone anymore. He can play Joe Paterno or Phil Spector or whomever. And he can do a fine job of it, in relative terms. He's a compentent professional. But there's no new rhythms or unexpected detours to be found in his performances. The old nugget Brando gave about an actor only having so many faces applies strongly to Pacino (and DeNiro). He does what he can, but has run out of ideas. I'll admit that Washington was very much in danger (as a prolific actor) of falling into the same rut as Pacino and DeNiro. Where as good as he was, you could almost predict exactly how he'd approach a performance. Fences and Roman J Israel, Esq changed that. Something has lit a fire under Washington. Maybe competitive spirit provided by contemporaries like Day-Lewis. But the stylistic risks in both performances, the technical audacity in both performances....it's breathtaking, high-wire shit that could go badly wrong in the hands of an actor less brilliant and gifted. Washington has once more, at a point in his career where most esteemed actors are happy to rest on their laurels, has once more discovered the element of surprise. It makes him one of the most potent and vital actors still working, instead of a legend past his best. See I don't agree with that either. In a different way, that's a similar trap too. I didn't see anything in Roman Israel honestly, I wasn't surprised, I thought he got nominated for his haircut and I'm not being mean, I like him well enough and loved his Fences but I had seen it basically exactly the same as on stage in 2011.........I wasn't surprised by it in any way in 2016 (impressed that he re-created it but not surprised). But my argument here is more based on the totality of great performances - and that to me is what it comes down to. When you watch DDL now you are aware of the selectivity but one day you won't be and the great performances stand independently of that anyway and what's left out is what is missing .........(why didn't he play a cop? why didn't he do Shakespeare? etc)
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 8, 2018 23:43:19 GMT
If you're not going to be super-selective like Day-Lewis, then you need to be extremely consistent like Washington (or Streep) at the highest level. And still be able to surprise. That's why so many of these old guard types have fallen away in the greatest living actor conversation. The prolificness and lack of selectivity exposes their weaknesses quite harshly. Pacino cannot surprise anyone anymore. He can play Joe Paterno or Phil Spector or whomever. And he can do a fine job of it, in relative terms. He's a compentent professional. But there's no new rhythms or unexpected detours to be found in his performances. The old nugget Brando gave about an actor only having so many faces applies strongly to Pacino (and DeNiro). He does what he can, but has run out of ideas. I'll admit that Washington was very much in danger (as a prolific actor) of falling into the same rut as Pacino and DeNiro. Where as good as he was, you could almost predict exactly how he'd approach a performance. Fences and Roman J Israel, Esq changed that. Something has lit a fire under Washington. Maybe competitive spirit provided by contemporaries like Day-Lewis. But the stylistic risks in both performances, the technical audacity in both performances....it's breathtaking, high-wire shit that could go badly wrong in the hands of an actor less brilliant and gifted. Washington has once more, at a point in his career where most esteemed actors are happy to rest on their laurels, has once more discovered the element of surprise. It makes him one of the most potent and vital actors still working, instead of a legend past his best. See I don't agree with that either. In a different way, that's a similar trap too. I didn't see anything in Roman Israel honestly, I wasn't surprised, I thought he got nominated for his haircut and I'm not being mean, I like him well enough and loved his Fences but I had seen it basically exactly the same as on stage in 2011.........I wasn't surprised by it in any way in 2016 (impressed that he re-created it but not surprised). But my argument here is more based on the totality of great performances - and that to me is what it comes down to. When you watch DDL now you are aware of the selectivity but one day you won't be and the great performances stand independently of that anyway and what's left out is what is missing .........(why didn't he play a cop? why didn't he do Shakespeare? etc) He had the same haircut in He Got Game (and no nomination, though he deserved it). You can be as mean (and reductive) as you want about Washington's performance (you've been reductive in the past about many of his performances that I and others find great, so it's not a big deal). It's your right. But it doesn't mean you are right (opinions are like a-holes, yes. We all got one). I've been correct about how a lot of these thing will unfold in the past, and I'm fairly confident I'll be right on this one as well. Roman is by far one of the most important roles he's ever played, and I think it'll become a popular option for one of his greatest performances, at least among those informed about cinema. In the main, because it represents such a perception busting outlier in his body of work. Roman J Israel, Esq is the gamechanger in the perception of Washington as the nonpareil actor of his era, and maybe of all time. More than Fences (risky and maybe better, but not quite as surprising as Roman). This is why the likes of Carnahan, on the day of the Oscars, in a category where Washington is up against Gary Oldman and Daniel Day-Lewis, is saying that Washington is the greatest actor on the planet and it isn't even close. Is Roman J his greatest performance? Don't know. But it's so completely unlike any other character he's played. Maybe there were still question marks in some corners about how far he could travel from his usual strengths as an actor. Roman J has killed that issue stone dead. Roman is so the opposite of what Washington often presents, that it's continued what Fences started and (finally) elevated him to the level of Brando and Streep. Some interesting recent major write-ups on Roman J Israel, Esq, and why Washington's performance was so brilliant, and deserving of the Oscar; www.vulture.com/2018/03/denzel-washington-roman-j-israel-esq-oscar-nominated-performance.htmlthefilmexperience.net/blog/2018/2/20/in-defense-of-denzel-washington-in-roman-j-israel-esq.htmlThe truth is, if Pacino in the last 20-25 years was still giving film performances as good and as interesting as Washington in Roman J, he'd still be easily in the frame for nominations and still be in the conversation for Greatest Living Actor. Actors are not easily hoodwinked, particularly in the lead category (which is why Tom Hanks isn't getting in for his own solid, but ultimately predictable lead performances any longer). Not to be mean about the film work of Pacino, but the last time he even approached a performance as good and surprising on film as Denzel in Roman J, was in Donnie Brasco, which was nearly a quarter of a century ago. At the end of the day, Washington is now the most respected living American actor, and Pacino isn't for a reason. And a lot of that is down to the accumalated adulation from actors in awe of the brilliance of performances you've chosen to be dismissive of (from Roman J Israel, Esq to Man On Fire to Inside Man to The Manchurian Candidate to He Got Game to lord knows how many more). Ultimately, their respective statures at the moment speak for themselves. All the rest is noise.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 8, 2018 23:49:40 GMT
We have talked about this before stephen (and it's still a good talk my friend ) but why would an actor ever want this other than for ego? Well, actors are inherently egotistical, and if one is wishing to emulate a great career whether in terms of box-office or acclaim, the ego is at work. Artists want to be remembered, and many (most?) want to be regarded for the quality of their body of work. Some actors succeeded in consecrating themselves early, but I don't think that excuses slipshod work further down the road. At that point, you're simply resting on your laurels and being lazy (looking at you, De Niro!). We disagree somewhat on how we view Pacino's career. I personally think Pacino was in a rut in the mid-1980s all the way to the late-'90s/early-'00s. He was becoming predictable, uninspired. He could be great with the right material ( Glengarry, The Insider, even The Devil's Advocate), but his bag of tricks had become well and truly exhausted. That's why he needed to reinvent himself, which he did by returning to the stage and tackling roles that hadn't been his bread-and-butter for so long. His HBO work is still recognizable as Pacino, but it's a revitalized Pacino. It's almost impossible to adequately compare Daniel Day-Lewis's output with any other actor's because of his extreme selectivity, which leaves little margin for error (to wit, that one "fuck-up" on DDL's part goes a long way towards blemishing his career; people harped on Nine so much that it's like his version of The Room). But I can't imagine people would pick on latter-day Pacino or De Niro as much as they do if they maybe refused to do Jack and Jill or Little Fockers. True, these films won't have the cultural resonance of their early work, but in the here and now, seeing actors of their caliber stuck in projects that don't deserve their talent is nothing but a disappointment. Pacino/De Niro movies should be events the way Day-Lewis's are. But when was the last time either man had a hit film that relied on their presence? I still am very much a Doubting Thomas when it comes to The Irishman. Eh, I don't really think we missed out much when it comes to Daniel Day-Lewis. He's run the gamut of genres. In fact, I'd argue that he showed more versatility in his rather tiny catalogue than any other actor. There were complaints that DDL wouldn't do comedies, but I'd argue that his last four Oscar-nominated performances have moments of fantastic comic timing ( Phantom Thread, in fact, is one of the funniest films I've seen in years). I obviously would want to see him continue working, but I don't have an real desire to see him play any sort of specific part like a crooked cop or something. I do know, however, that if he decided to, he would make it a wholly unique, ground-up creation.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 9, 2018 0:13:26 GMT
I don't think anyone can question Day-Lewis ability play any sort of dramatic role. The only thing one might question is his ability to elevate poor or mediocre material. His selectivity means he's never been tested in that way.
I'm sure DDL would absolutely crush it as a contemporary cop in some Michael Mann (in his better days) or Scorsese magnum opus. But could he wring much out of a lesser director and a ropey script? We'll never know.
But that's partially why I think Washington has a slight edge in respect among actors over Day-Lewis. Washington crushes it as well under optimal conditions (great script, great director ect), but also delivers in the trenches when the service ain't so great. Day-Lewis is more of a luxury item by comparison.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 9, 2018 0:27:31 GMT
I don't think anyone can question Day-Lewis ability play any sort of dramatic role. The only thing one might question is his ability to elevate poor or mediocre material. His selectivity means he's never been tested in that way. I'm sure DDL would absolutely crush it as a contemporary cop in some Michael Mann (in his better days) or Scorsese magnum opus. But could he wring much out of a lesser director and a ropey script? We'll never know. But that's partially why I think Washington has a slight edge in respect among actors over Day-Lewis. Washington crushes it as well under optimal conditions (great script, great director ect), but also delivers in the trenches when the service ain't so great. Day-Lewis is more of a luxury item by comparison. Daniel Day-Lewis isn't a utility infielder. You don't simply call him to fill space. And his reputation is such that the only people that would approach him are those who know that a.) the project is worthwhile, b.) that it's not the sort of everyday role that any actor can play, and c.) that they can manage to work alongside his method routine. Most directors do not have the time or wherewithal for that, and there is an obvious intimidation factor that goes along with it. Now, the directors who have worked with him (PTA, Spielberg, Scorsese) have had nothing but positive things to say about Day-Lewis when it comes to being a collaborator; he isn't as "extreme" as the parodic Kirk Lazarus of Tropic Thunder or the "wanna-be" copycats would have us believe. I don't think that people can hold Day-Lewis's selectivity against him when judging him against the other greats. It's just one metric that can't necessarily be quantified (although I would argue that Day-Lewis elevated the holy hell out of a scattershot script in Gangs of New York, a film that was also salvaged by Scorsese's best direction, a fantastic supporting ensemble, and the best art direction/costumes of any movie).
|
|