|
Post by pacinoyes on May 19, 2020 15:07:28 GMT
stephen is correct and something to think about: This is a GOAT actor - I don't rank him "quite" as high as some do on the definitive pacinoyes list (um)- but he was 3rd on our GOAT poll and in Phantom Thread he gave a performance where the ghost of a parent in the film - the mother of his character and "seeing her" was a big part of the storyline. So Day-Lewis' allowed - maybe even encouraged or suggested - an element from his own personal/professional life to be used for his Art. An incident that caused him great personal pain and professional embarrassment at his low point was used as part of the greatest farewell performance in film history ........one of them at least. Not only is that amazing........it's actually going to come up again in this thread I bet........ Never Cursed:
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 19, 2020 15:20:57 GMT
I know that Day-Lewis has some peculiar proclivities as an actor, but I never would have imagined him to be so totally unprofessional... In the midst of his personal tragedy, he should have stepped away from the production before going on stage. It's a great argument - it depends where you fall on him or the craft in general. In general NO ONE gets away with that and you can read many stories of actors walking off opposite Nicol Williamson for being unprofessional on stage where Williamson was actually blamed for them leaving Part of the problem is he took his ball and went home in a big production where he wasn't being warmly received (opposite Dench too)...........sort of like he did with his film comedies which failed and he never went back them overtly. There's a reason he has that reputation of a cherry picker who played it safe.........in a way (though that is not true in ALL ways). He's fascinating to discuss in this way - certain little patterns repeat throughout his work - good and bad. I mean after all "to be.........or NOT to be"
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 21, 2020 21:25:02 GMT
I wanted to post this about like the Day-Lewis post the other day and how you never know how things will turn out and I was reading an interesting article on Anthony Hopkins GOAT UK contender, heir to Olivier, who must have felt pretty depressed in 1977 when Equus was filmed and he was needing a really big movie break. Hopkins had left the Shakespeare company a few years earlier in the 70s and his theater work became much more less stressful and less frequent but he still did it (he played Lear in his 40s for the first time - later he filmed it). Hopkins originated the "Richard Burton role" on Broadway for years - he did it in NYC.......he did it in LA...... and got marvelous reviews, but he missed a Tony nod and more or less got his thunder stolen by co-star Peter Firth. Firth got the Tony nod and when it came time to cast the movie, Firth got it and so did Richard Burton who came out of nowhere and snatched the part. A few years later he swiped The Elephant Man film from the play in much the same way as Burton had.........a decade later comes the Silence of The Lambs and then........well, the rest is movie history and of course he had already made theater history and TV history with some of his best work. Onstage in the original Equus:
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by Javi on May 21, 2020 22:44:44 GMT
Didn't know he did Equus with Firth! I'm Hopkins-obsessed atm, feel like watching Magic soon.
I love his quote that you posted recently, about theatre consuming life and him needing to get away from that. There's this quality that he has that's very un-British imo and maybe that's part of the reason... he doesn't feel like one who lived his whole life on a stage.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 25, 2020 10:13:23 GMT
The great Ian McKellen born today May 25th, 80 years ago. McKellen is either the greatest living UK stage actor or in a battle with Mark Rylance for such acclaim at least. He's been covered a lot - as an exciting late career rival to Hopkins especially and a guy who sort of had himself re-evaluated through many things - lectures, documentaries and defining a single role for years: King Lear. Like Rylance his theater work is so great you can legitimately rank him as the best living actor period across 3 mediums depending on how highly you rank his work on stage perhaps. Notable in film and TV but with 6 Olivier awards he is like the male version of Judi Dench in stagework. In his Tony winning role as Broadway's original Salieri in Amadeus (1980) and with Judi Dench in the best acted Macbeth filmed in 1979:
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on May 26, 2020 21:02:10 GMT
Great GQ profile today on Steve Buscemi who hasn't had a full look in this thread yet I don't think. From GQ: "At 62, Buscemi has spent a lifetime playing lunatics and weirdos, outcasts and oddballs, his wiry frame a guitar string thrumming with rage or taut with the deep discomfort of simply existing in the world. The crown jewels of his visage are his heavy-lidded blue eyes, one of the most recognizable sets in the business, which can jut out maniacally or drown in subdued sorrow." Jarmusch compares him to Don Knotts and Jimmy Stewart - how bout that? I love Buscemi a lot - him and Walken were my pet fav actors back in the day when VHS was still in rental stores, I'd rifle thru the back credit blurbs to see if they were in the cast. Always interesting and unique on screen - especially that 90s spell of Reservoir Dogs, Fargo, Living in Oblivion, his best Trees Lounge, and everything else he was popping up in, pop-culture cult favs, masterpieces, impressive peanut indies - he worked in a row with QT, Coens, Carpenter, Altman! GG nom, came close but cruelly missed an Oscar nom for Ghost World - and recently 2018 saw him in three different perfs: serious Nancy, cartoonish Death of Stalin, and redneck rough Lean on Pete. As for TV: great in The Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, and heartbreaking in Horace & Pete. Haven't seen his guests on Homicide or 30 Rock - cough, Pacinoyes? Also, didn't like the pilot of Miracle Workers but saw some of the new-narrative S2 (he plays a character named Ed Shitshoveler) and that seems more my speed and might check out more. Stage: did some experimental theatre in the 80s, did Brecht with Pacino, and his next role is with Oscar Isaac doing Chekhov so he ain't done with it.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 26, 2020 21:12:28 GMT
Great GQ profile today on Steve Buscemi who hasn't had a full look in this thread yet I don't think. From GQ: As for TV: great in The Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, and heartbreaking in Horace & Pete. Haven't seen his guests on Homicide or 30 Rock - cough, Pacinoyes? Also, didn't like the pilot of Miracle Workers but saw some of the new-narrative S2 (he plays a character named Ed Shitshoveler) and that seems more my speed and might check out more. Stage: did some experimental theatre in the 80s, did Brecht with Pacino, and his next role is with Oscar Isaac doing Chekhov so he ain't done with it. He's chilling as a scumbag racist in Homicide and hilariously daft in 30 Rock - you'll love both - might be on Youtube or Vimeo?. I saw him with Pacino in The Resistable Rise of Arturo Ui and while his part was small I remember him, John Goodman and Billy Crudup on the curtain call hugging Pacino and (not kidding) hoisting him up on their shoulders. I mentioned this play the other day when I took a shot at Paul Giamatti for more or less "quitting" on stage - not walking off but just goofing off - the most unprofessional thing I've ever seen in theater........but hey it makes a good story and I tell it from time to time so that's something
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 26, 2020 21:33:31 GMT
Buscemi's Homicide stint is chilling, and it puts him square against one of the unsung greats of TV: Andre Braugher. Definitely give it a watch.
But if you can't wait to watch the entire three-episode arc involving his storyline, here's his big scene:
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 27, 2020 13:43:01 GMT
Birthday boys - Price and Lee (born on the 27th) born today and Cushing yesterday (26th). All 3 guys did all three mediums and I always say give Vincent Price's roles especially to any American GOAT - from Clift & Brando right on up to the best working today....... DiCaprio.......Phoenix ...........they'd all go down hard.......it''s ....um....scary!
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 30, 2020 15:56:19 GMT
A few posts back I did a post on "Combined Triple Crown" nominations - go back and look at the post and the contemplate the imminent rise of Adam Driver as historic (and modern) in this way (you heard it here first, trust me).......well Kathy Bates is amazing in this way too: 4 Oscar nods + a ton of Emmy nods (13 I think) and yet she only has 1 Tony nod and that's her forte for Godsakes. Those numbers put her somewhat close to US female heavy hitters Streep/Close. She was sort of the Olivia Colman of her day (kidding) - 42 before breaking through in a really big way - she's one of those "missing the Triple Crown" but you're not sure exactly how that could be? Kathy Bates in the original stage version of 'Night Mother (1983) - her one Tony nod to date:
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 1, 2020 9:43:40 GMT
As we (sort of) get ready for a new Emmy season I thought it might be fun to examine the case of Triple Crown winner Viola Davis - the ONLY African American - male or female - to hold this honor and that leaves out a lot of big guns - Cicely Tyson, James Earl Jones, Denzel Washington, Jeffrey Wright etc. and she's a recent member to the club too - she joined in 2017. Davis is also crucial because she illustrates why the Triple Crown is going to go through the roof for women especially in the 2020s - the 4 men who have it are all over 70+ and have had it for a long time (Christopher Plummer joined in 2012 - he was the last to make it) but Davis is only in her mid-50s and has a chance to run up big nominations and win totals because she's on a regular series too. A lot of people look at the Emmy every year as "Can Alan Arkin win one to finally join the male club?" when the real story may be more - "how far can Viola Davis re-define the Triple Crown totals for females starting in her mid-50s?"
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 2, 2020 15:35:49 GMT
A different topic - can we always "identify" an actor who does theater and what does that mean and why is it always only said as a "negative" regarding film? Cate Blanchett who gets a lot of acclaim of course also get this specific criticism a lot - in her movies, she's sometimes dismissed as "too theatrical" rather than being a "natural" which is "desired" in movies/TV.......... but I would argue this doesn't stand up most of the time. I'd even go further actually - that her acting is merely technically strong whereas criticism of that technique is being mixed with the word "theatrical", mostly lazily. Regardless it's one of the reasons people who don't like theater maybe really don't like it. Cate Blanchett in A Streetcar Named Desire - directed by Liv Ullman (!) - (2009)
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Jun 2, 2020 19:16:13 GMT
Love this question bc it's a big one and you can almost assess every actor by it. Depp has creative flair across his perfs - his mentors are Brando and Pacino for chrissakes - and Cage has an obsession with acting history and craft. But they've never done theater. Then I see a lower tough quality in the perfs of say Keach and Brian Dennehy on screen - it's almost surprising to me the range of their stage credits and how established they are there. How many of John C Reilly's fans know he's a theater school graduate and Tony nominee? It's kinda case by case but I guess for me I can't always identify the thesp. More....... I rarely see theatricality as a bad thing. Some only see overacting - and that it's "wrong" why? There's a lot of "theatrical" in Depardieu, projecting delivery and clearing space, but I've also never seen a bad or boring Depardieu perf. I see worse overacting, for example, in the Amy Adams irrigation system style of acting, than other "big, broad" perfs. There's something to what Kazan said, the "poetic realization" of acting behavior that isn't "realistic" but evocative because it's particular, or bc of the tangible, translated size of it. I posted about Welles before how he always brought and you always felt theater on him, but there's a larger than life vitality to him onscreen that's exciting - that we'll never meet anyone like him in our real lives doesn't matter - how many actors can you call mythic? How about hammy? Hate that word. You won't ever hear me call a performance hammy - and they sling it at Pacino ridiculously and wrongly. Gimme big over mannequinic dullness. When Blanchett roars "I too can command the wind! I have a hurricane in me!" in Elizabeth The Golden Age I like to think she was talking to her haters who want her to play their "subtle" neighbor or something...
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 2, 2020 19:28:14 GMT
Love this question bc it's a big one and you can almost assess every actor by it. Depp has creative flair across his perfs - his mentors are Brando and Pacino for chrissakes - and Cage has an obsession with acting history and craft. But they've never done theater. Then I see a lower tough quality in the perfs of say Keach and Brian Dennehy on screen - it's almost surprising to me the range of their stage credits and how established they are there. How many of John C Reilly's fans know he's a theater school graduate and Tony nominee? It's kinda case by case but I guess for me I can't always identify the thesp. More....... I rarely see theatricality as a bad thing. Some only see overacting - and that it's "wrong" why? There's a lot of "theatrical" in Depardieu, projecting delivery and clearing space, but I've also never seen a bad or boring Depardieu perf. I see worse overacting, for example, in the Amy Adams irrigation system style of acting, than other "big, broad" perfs. There's something to what Kazan said, the "poetic realization" of acting behavior that isn't "realistic" but evocative because it's particular, or bc of the tangible, translated size of it. I posted about Welles before how he always brought and you always felt theater on him, but there's a larger than life vitality to him onscreen that's exciting - that we'll never meet anyone like him in our real lives doesn't matter - how many actors can you call mythic? How about hammy? Hate that word. You won't ever hear me call a performance hammy - and they sling it at Pacino ridiculously and wrongly. Gimme big over mannequinic dullness. When Blanchett roars "I too can command the wind! I have a hurricane in me!" in Elizabeth The Golden Age I like to think she was talking to her haters who want her to play their "subtle" neighbor or something... My feeling on theatricality is this: what works for the stage doesn't necessarily work for the screen, and it's so damned easy to go off the rails if you go big and broad because there's nowhere to hide. It's why I respect Daniel Day-Lewis and Geraldine Page as much as I do and consider them the greatest to ever step before a camera. Because they know not just how to go full-bore, over-the-top and round-the-bend, but also how to make it work within the confines of the work they are in. Then you have someone like Cage who is capable of going balls-to-the-wall and will at the drop of a hat, but if you don't know how to use him, he could easily wind up drowning out the movie. It's why I think Cage would be incredible to see on stage; I think his brand of acting would translate to Broadway quite easily.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Jun 2, 2020 20:13:43 GMT
Love this question bc it's a big one and you can almost assess every actor by it. Depp has creative flair across his perfs - his mentors are Brando and Pacino for chrissakes - and Cage has an obsession with acting history and craft. But they've never done theater. Then I see a lower tough quality in the perfs of say Keach and Brian Dennehy on screen - it's almost surprising to me the range of their stage credits and how established they are there. How many of John C Reilly's fans know he's a theater school graduate and Tony nominee? It's kinda case by case but I guess for me I can't always identify the thesp. More....... I rarely see theatricality as a bad thing. Some only see overacting - and that it's "wrong" why? There's a lot of "theatrical" in Depardieu, projecting delivery and clearing space, but I've also never seen a bad or boring Depardieu perf. I see worse overacting, for example, in the Amy Adams irrigation system style of acting, than other "big, broad" perfs. There's something to what Kazan said, the "poetic realization" of acting behavior that isn't "realistic" but evocative because it's particular, or bc of the tangible, translated size of it. I posted about Welles before how he always brought and you always felt theater on him, but there's a larger than life vitality to him onscreen that's exciting - that we'll never meet anyone like him in our real lives doesn't matter - how many actors can you call mythic? How about hammy? Hate that word. You won't ever hear me call a performance hammy - and they sling it at Pacino ridiculously and wrongly. Gimme big over mannequinic dullness. When Blanchett roars "I too can command the wind! I have a hurricane in me!" in Elizabeth The Golden Age I like to think she was talking to her haters who want her to play their "subtle" neighbor or something... My feeling on theatricality is this: what works for the stage doesn't necessarily work for the screen, and it's so damned easy to go off the rails if you go big and broad because there's nowhere to hide. It's why I respect Daniel Day-Lewis and Geraldine Page as much as I do and consider them the greatest to ever step before a camera. Because they know not just how to go full-bore, over-the-top and round-the-bend, but also how to make it work within the confines of the work they are in. Then you have someone like Cage who is capable of going balls-to-the-wall and will at the drop of a hat, but if you don't know how to use him, he could easily wind up drowning out the movie. It's why I think Cage would be incredible to see on stage; I think his brand of acting would translate to Broadway quite easily. I agree with you, and I loveeeeee Geraldine Page. There's a really fascinating book The Way of the Actor by Brian Bates - Cage is a huge fan of the book actually, and I'd recommend for all who like this thread bc it discusses performances and whether acting is/should/can be interpretive and cites a lot of the greats, like Brando, Olivier, and Page - she has a quote that goes with what you said, how actors can be "so busy making conscious connections to their character that they swamp the material." But I'm sometimes amused (it depends) by an actor going off, with the movie trying to keep up. I'll try to think of a good example, maybe with Finney or Steiger, or more likely Cage, who yes would be a beast on stage but at this point I don't see it happening. And I've been thinking of positive examples but it's true - especially with younger actors (do you see the actors in the Born in the 90s thread- yikes) they have amateur eagerness in their perfs, and only a few do theater - but like the old cookbooks ask, will learning the technique change the flavor?
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jun 2, 2020 20:22:51 GMT
Love this question bc it's a big one and you can almost assess every actor by it. Depp has creative flair across his perfs - his mentors are Brando and Pacino for chrissakes - and Cage has an obsession with acting history and craft. But they've never done theater. Then I see a lower tough quality in the perfs of say Keach and Brian Dennehy on screen - it's almost surprising to me the range of their stage credits and how established they are there. How many of John C Reilly's fans know he's a theater school graduate and Tony nominee? It's kinda case by case but I guess for me I can't always identify the thesp. More....... I rarely see theatricality as a bad thing. Some only see overacting - and that it's "wrong" why? There's a lot of "theatrical" in Depardieu, projecting delivery and clearing space, but I've also never seen a bad or boring Depardieu perf. I see worse overacting, for example, in the Amy Adams irrigation system style of acting, than other "big, broad" perfs. There's something to what Kazan said, the "poetic realization" of acting behavior that isn't "realistic" but evocative because it's particular, or bc of the tangible, translated size of it. I posted about Welles before how he always brought and you always felt theater on him, but there's a larger than life vitality to him onscreen that's exciting - that we'll never meet anyone like him in our real lives doesn't matter - how many actors can you call mythic? How about hammy? Hate that word. You won't ever hear me call a performance hammy - and they sling it at Pacino ridiculously and wrongly. Gimme big over mannequinic dullness. When Blanchett roars "I too can command the wind! I have a hurricane in me!" in Elizabeth The Golden Age I like to think she was talking to her haters who want her to play their "subtle" neighbor or something...
I agree that realism is not an end-all for acting, but I don't think what Blanchett is doing there is the same as what someone like Vivien Leigh in Streetcar is doing in her heightened moments. Sometimes actors and actresses "go big" and it doesn't seem persuasive to me in the context of the movie. Fiona Shaw is wonderful in many things, but I found her appalling in The Black Dahlia because whatever she was doing was so incongruous with the tone that it seemed wholly arbitrary.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Jun 2, 2020 20:34:31 GMT
Love this question bc it's a big one and you can almost assess every actor by it. Depp has creative flair across his perfs - his mentors are Brando and Pacino for chrissakes - and Cage has an obsession with acting history and craft. But they've never done theater. Then I see a lower tough quality in the perfs of say Keach and Brian Dennehy on screen - it's almost surprising to me the range of their stage credits and how established they are there. How many of John C Reilly's fans know he's a theater school graduate and Tony nominee? It's kinda case by case but I guess for me I can't always identify the thesp. More....... I rarely see theatricality as a bad thing. Some only see overacting - and that it's "wrong" why? There's a lot of "theatrical" in Depardieu, projecting delivery and clearing space, but I've also never seen a bad or boring Depardieu perf. I see worse overacting, for example, in the Amy Adams irrigation system style of acting, than other "big, broad" perfs. There's something to what Kazan said, the "poetic realization" of acting behavior that isn't "realistic" but evocative because it's particular, or bc of the tangible, translated size of it. I posted about Welles before how he always brought and you always felt theater on him, but there's a larger than life vitality to him onscreen that's exciting - that we'll never meet anyone like him in our real lives doesn't matter - how many actors can you call mythic? How about hammy? Hate that word. You won't ever hear me call a performance hammy - and they sling it at Pacino ridiculously and wrongly. Gimme big over mannequinic dullness. When Blanchett roars "I too can command the wind! I have a hurricane in me!" in Elizabeth The Golden Age I like to think she was talking to her haters who want her to play their "subtle" neighbor or something...
I agree that realism is not an end-all for acting, but I don't think what Blanchett is doing there is the same as what someone like Vivien Leigh in Streetcar is doing in her heightened moments. Sometimes actors and actresses "go big" and it doesn't seem persuasive to me in the context of the movie. Fiona Shaw is wonderful in many things, but I found her appalling in The Black Dahlia because whatever she was doing was so incongruous with the tone that it seemed wholly arbitrary. My Blanchett remark was mostly a joke but I see what you're saying - though I'm one of the .002% who doesn't love Leigh in Streetcar. But absolutely, a jarring perf that zaps you out is rarely a good thing. At the same time, there's factors to it - when we no longer "buy" a perf does it lose all its rewards? Like so many striking comedic perfs, Kahn or Kathleen Turner in Serial Mom, for example - where the self-awareness is intentional and clever. And how about camp! Another whole sub-discussion of theatricality as ironic/iconic.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jun 2, 2020 21:06:03 GMT
I agree that realism is not an end-all for acting, but I don't think what Blanchett is doing there is the same as what someone like Vivien Leigh in Streetcar is doing in her heightened moments. Sometimes actors and actresses "go big" and it doesn't seem persuasive to me in the context of the movie. Fiona Shaw is wonderful in many things, but I found her appalling in The Black Dahlia because whatever she was doing was so incongruous with the tone that it seemed wholly arbitrary. My Blanchett remark was mostly a joke but I see what you're saying - though I'm one of the .002% who doesn't love Leigh in Streetcar. But absolutely, a jarring perf that zaps you out is rarely a good thing. At the same time, there's factors to it - when we no longer "buy" a perf does it lose all its rewards? Like so many striking comedic perfs, Kahn or Kathleen Turner in Serial Mom, for example - where the self-awareness is intentional and clever. And how about camp! Another whole sub-discussion of theatricality as ironic/iconic. That's fair. I think the sheer insanity Cage is displaying in Deadfall is amazing acting and the only good thing about the movie, yet it's undeniably big by any metric.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jun 3, 2020 22:59:57 GMT
Read thru this entire thread today. Can we get som love for Martin Sheen? I’m surprised he hasn’t been mentions (unless I completely missed it).
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 3, 2020 23:06:17 GMT
Read thru this entire thread today. Can we get som love for Martin Sheen? I’m surprised he hasn’t been mentions (unless I completely missed it). He's awesome - on Page 27 - thank you for reading through the thread - sometimes I think the length scares people away. Sheen is very representative of guys who came of age in the 60s - and of course he worked all 3 mediums and TV to some of his best acclaim too. Btw if you want to search the thread just type the actors name as your search word and "stage" in the thread name. He's particularly good at horror on TV and of course The West Wing
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jun 3, 2020 23:13:42 GMT
Read thru this entire thread today. Can we get som love for Martin Sheen? I’m surprised he hasn’t been mentions (unless I completely missed it). He's awesome - on Page 27 - thank you for reading through the thread - sometimes I think the length scares people away. Sheen is very representative of guys who came of age in the 60s - and of course he worked all 3 mediums and TV to some of his best acclaim too. Btw if you want to search the thread just type the actors name as your search word and "stage" in the thread name. He's particularly good at horror on TV and of course The West Wing Yep, think I glossed that part after the Walter Matthau stuff (and 26 previous pages).
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jun 3, 2020 23:14:05 GMT
Read thru this entire thread today. Can we get som love for Martin Sheen? I’m surprised he hasn’t been mentions (unless I completely missed it). Oct 2019 I did a lil writeup on Sheen in here. Just went back to read it, good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Jun 4, 2020 1:50:19 GMT
Two not yet mentioned - each have 5 Lead Actress nominations and 1 win - Shirley MacLaine & Susan SarandonMacLaine started on Broadway (pic above, 1954 The Pajama Game) but quickly got a contract with Paramount, thrust into her first pic a Hitchcock, the autumnal The Trouble With Harry that she won a GG for. Soon she was pally with the Rat Pack and a lively wonder in Some Came Running which Huppert once called her all-time fav performance. Speaking of, MacLaine & Huppert are I think the only two actresses who have more than one Venice fest Volpi Cup. Between being absolutely lovely/funny in some Billy Wilder's, she's heartbreaking in The Children's Hour (playing a lesbian, this 1961) and what might be my fav of hers, Two for the Seesaw a weakish movie that she lifts with an amazingly fresh perf. Her career has odd peaks and drops after the 60s - still, there's Being There, Terms of Endearment, Postcards from the Edge (a perfect, terrific part for her) and underrated work like Guarding Tess, and more. Not much for TV though she has an Emmy nom for playing Coco Chanel. And still working at 86 y/o. She seems to have had a big ego and lunatic side to her, I wonder if that troubled her career much? ....Any big fans here? Sarandon, I love. She has a ton of noteworthy movie perfs - she's an effortless presence, at times breathtaking, with those tranced eyes, and can be hilarious and good fun, effective in her straighter melancholic roles, and makes the most of smaller roles too. Atlantic City, Witches of Eastwick, White Palace, Thelma & Louise, Dead Man Walking, Anywhere But Here, The Meddler, and major cult staples like Rocky Horror Picture Show, etc. As for TV, 5 Emmy noms - she also gives a great, winning perf in Who Am I This Time opposite Walken, she's very affecting in YDKJ opposite Pacino, or the brilliantly contrary diva in Bernard & Doris opposite Fiennes, and dynamite in Feud. As for Stage, she has a few Drama Desk noms - she seems to be more active in theater the more you search - I guess the biggest thing is Exit the King opposite a Tony winning Geoffrey Rush. She sure don't mind facing the greats. I actually saw her last year off-broadway in a Jesse Eisenberg play as a deluded suburban housewife, rocky play but worked when viewed as a dark sitcom. At 73y/o still works a lot, she should knock on FX's door again... Having a fine time:
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 4, 2020 10:12:46 GMT
Two not yet mentioned - each have 5 Lead Actress nominations and 1 win - Shirley MacLaine & Susan SarandonThese are two major US actresses and MacLaine especially could probably generate several great biographies....I know people roll there eyes when I talk about "acting metrics" but she has several of those and they run very deep in ways that illustrate a unique career. I think she's 3rd all time for Golden Globe nominations (?) not a big deal in itself but if you look at years covered by them and more than that the amount of material they cover if you just look at those is pretty jaw-dropping. At one time she'd have been considered a terrific comedienne ........later but almost simultaneously to that she was a major dramatic actress........a dancer........a star.........a love interest........a buddy..........an entertainer.........sexual but never merely sexualized. When she passes away - not to be morbid - but a whole lot of "last of Hollywood" lore will pass away with her specifically. Sarandon in some ways is passed over a lot imo because of her lack of a "big time persona". Almost every GOAT actor or greatest of generation actor/actress has to carry themselves like they are the show even when they are not really - a little more of Susan Sarandon acting diva-ish like she's Faye Dunaway (or Jessica Lange..........or Shirley Maclaine actually) would have gone a long way to make her acting position seem more lofty. She's been awfully good for a very long time ........she is in many ways like her Light Sleeper costar Willem Dafoe where the totality of her work gives a whole different picture than what we think of as just her "big performances". Her background is totally fascinating - she's a mix of deep training and bohemian project signposts - in many ways the opposite of her sort of rival Lange who's life background/training in acting is bohemian but who's early career is Hollywood starry.........almost the exact opposite of Sarandon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2020 16:03:05 GMT
I did not realize just how accomplished Christina Applegate is - Emmy winner, Tony nominee - never really ascended in film despite some good roles, but never had to IMO - especially now that she's doing the best work of her entire career in Dead to Me. The way she can plumb the depths of despair and then immediately turn on a dime to laugh-out-loud comedy is just astounding to me.
|
|