|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 5, 2019 22:31:25 GMT
Also, Dana can't top Alexis Carrington Had to google who this was... sooooo... Not exactly sure why you are so proud of admitting this....but each to their own. She's the reason people know who Joan Collins is to this day (and why she's a Dame) Sure there are a lot of millenials who have to Google who Blanche Dubois and Scarlett O'Hara are as well. Doesn't make them any less iconic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2019 0:26:46 GMT
Has Ellen Barkin been mentioned yet? An Emmy and Tony winner with multiple prominent film roles.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 6, 2019 0:39:24 GMT
Back to the topic....I find Cate Blachett's UK stage career a bit puzzling, in it's lack of accolades. Gillian Anderson was Olivier nominated for All About Eve, which Blanchett dropped out of to do another London play at the same time (We Have Sufficiently tortured Each Other). Blanchett was not nominated.
Blanchett has done several stage shows in London over the years (since 1999), and never been Olivier nominated. She did get an Evening Standard Theatre award nomination for Big & Small in 2012.
Contrast to her compatriot Nicole Kidman, who does stage far less regularly, but has two Olivier Award Best Actress nominations (from two London stage engagements in 16 years), and two Evening Standard Theatre Award wins.
In general, Blanchett has the bigger reputation for being a stage animal than Kidman because she's much more prolific, but in the UK, Kidman has garnered far more accolades in just two stage appearences.
I feel like Blanchett really wants to do something special in London, which is why she keeps performing there. But it's not happening there for her for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 6, 2019 1:02:59 GMT
Has Ellen Barkin been mentioned yet? An Emmy and Tony winner with multiple prominent film roles. Good call. An actress who should have had much more more - she's dead serious about her craft, doesn't suffer fools gladly, has a wicked sense of humor (not sure if you've ever seen her in Modern Family but that show, like it did for Ed Norton actually brought out a great side of her) but I think she always got and gets passed over for roles. We do a lot of talk - or I do at least about older actors and who can cash in from their old age - like Plummer has.......but for older actresses she could be one who one day gets an ace part and well aces it. Her best work should have translated into more great work but somehow didn't although she got some solid roles ......... I love her myself and love her looks too - I was quite fond of her American buttoned up sophisticate with glasses business look on the underrated Oceans 13 dammit - only female in the cast at 54.......that's kind of a coup.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 6, 2019 11:06:17 GMT
Today's person is arguably the worlds best (edit: most skilled since she hasn't done TV) in her age range across the 3 at least and mentioned above, so without further delay and drum roll please ..........Cate Blanchett.
“I always see theatre as a provocation,” she says. “You’re not up there running for office, you’re asking a series of questions."
That great quote given by her very recently could have been from Robards or Scott or Smith or Redgrave too. She nearly brings that level of stage pedigree at near 50 - she got her Tony nomination for Broadway debut last time out, her stage work - wildly diverse and daring all over the world (UK, Australia, New York (major non-Broadway too) she co-starred with Huppert in a production of The Maids (the mind boggles).
For film she's on solid on way more than solid footing obviously, her stage work she's somewhat rather peerless in how she goes about it (look at the range and volume Uncle Vanya and Plenty and Streetcar) and weirdly it's TV that's missing although you'd assume that like others who've avoided it, is imminent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2019 15:44:33 GMT
and weirdly it's TV that's missing although you'd assume that like others who've avoided it, is imminent. Yes, she will be playing Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly in a miniseries called "Mrs. America" - it's in pre-production now.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 6, 2019 15:45:46 GMT
She can't be the world's best in her age group across the 3 mediums if she's done nothing major on TV (and that is imminent....she's shooting a mini-series called for the FX network called Mrs America). I don't see much difference between skill-sets for film and TV, so she should have little trouble translating to TV. It's basically the same thing. Blanchett will do well on TV, I suspect. But will it be major, or another "so what", like Penn in The First? Remains to be seen
Obviously for now I think Kidman takes that crown pretty easily for combined mediums her age group (and arguably in general, regardless of age group). She's major on stage, film and TV.
Julianne Moore never cracked stage.The likes of Charlize Theron and Kate Winslet never even tried. Gillian Anderson has TV and stage on lock, but isn't major enough on film.
Was gonna say Rachel Weisz could qualify for all 3 mediums. because she's major on stage and film. But surprised to see she's done nothing major for TV
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 6, 2019 16:05:04 GMT
She can't be the world's best in her age group across the 3 mediums if she's done nothing major on TV (and that is imminent....she's shooting a mini-series called for the FX network called Mrs America). I don't see much difference between skill-sets for film and TV, so she should have little trouble translating to TV. It's basically the same thing. Blanchett will do well on TV, I suspect. Obviously for now I think Kidman takes that crown pretty easily for combined mediums her age group (and arguably in general, regardless of age group). She's major on stage, film and TV. Julianne Moore never cracked stage.The likes of Charlize Theron and Kate Winslet never even tried. Gillian Anderson has TV and stage on lock, but isn't major enough on film. True on the first sentence indeed, agree. I don't think the issue with the people who haven't done TV is in skill set but rather project selection and commitment - for example Newman won an Emmy late in his career but he's no Lemmon in that regard etc (see Lemmon earlier in this thread). It's a little odd because its always a balance between commitment/success in it I think.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 9, 2019 15:30:13 GMT
@tyler brought up an interesting stat (Bening), Ed Harris, Mark Ruffalo, and Sigourney Weaver are the only actors to have nominations across all three awards bodies (Oscar, Emmy, Tony) without any wins.
So let's look at Ruffalo today - 3 time Oscar nominee, a guy who was a presumptive winner for the Emmy recently, but nope (Normal Heart) and as recently as 2017 a Tony nominee. He's 51 - the age where he could make a big move now and who's been close recently. A very sort of Denzel/Hanks/Clooney good guy-saint lead role in the next Todd Haynes movie, a TV film based on the very big-time book I Know This Much is True (dual role I'm supposing?) - he is another of those bubbling under and whom the stars may be aligning for right now.
Some of these US actors in their late 40s-early 50s are an interesting bunch - no one considers any of them (like Ruffalo) a rival to the big time guys in their 70s or even in their 60s across the mediums - but there is a noticeable gap in this groups willingness to go on stage AND TV than the guys just a bit younger than they are that's curious at the moment at least.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 9, 2019 15:36:49 GMT
@tyler brought up an interesting stat (Bening), Ed Harris, Mark Ruffalo, and Sigourney Weaver are the only actors to have nominations across all three awards bodies (Oscar, Emmy, Tony) without any wins. So let's look at Ruffalo today - 3 time Oscar nominee, a guy who was a presumptive winner for the Emmy recently, but nope (Normal Heart) and as recently as 2017 a Tony nominee. He's 51 - the age where he could make a big move now and who's been close recently. A very sort of Denzel/Hanks/Clooney good guy-saint lead role in the next Todd Haynes movie, a TV film based on the very big-time book I Know This Much is True (dual role I'm supposing?) - he is another of those bubbling under and whom the stars may be aligning for right now. Some of these US actors in their late 40s-early 50s are an interesting bunch - no one considers any of them (like Ruffalo) a rival to the big time guys in their 70s or even in their 60s across the mediums - but there is a noticeable gap in this groups willingness to go on stage AND TV than the guys just a bit younger than they are that's curious at the moment at least. I've made it abundantly clear over the years how much disdain I have for Ruffalo, and how I feel like he's an actor everyone sort of "bought into" because he fits the bill of an indie darling. He's a nice guy, personable, and as such you want to root for him and see him succeed. And he does have a couple of solid performances to his name. But I also think that he's got a nasty habit of overacting, one which age has not allayed. Ruffalo is terrible at playing characters with righteous indignation, which unfortunately has taken up a fair bit of his latter-day career. He's much more believable in more subdued, grounded parts ( Foxcatcher is probably the best thing he's ever done). I'd be inclined to say that as far as his awards success, I chalk it up more to luck than anything else (which is obviously a mark of most careers) and weak fields of competition. I wouldn't be surprised if he wins one or more of these prizes when all is said and done, because the guy's networked pretty well and people like him, so it's likely a matter of time . . . but if he keeps cranking out performances like he did in Spotlight and The Normal Heart, no thanks.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 10, 2019 0:00:51 GMT
@tyler brought up an interesting stat (Bening), Ed Harris, Mark Ruffalo, and Sigourney Weaver are the only actors to have nominations across all three awards bodies (Oscar, Emmy, Tony) without any wins. Denzel/Hanks/Clooney good guy-saint lead role in the next Todd Haynes movie, a TV film based on the very big-time book I Know This Much is True (dual role I'm supposing?) - he is another of those bubbling under and whom the stars may be aligning for right now. Denzel doesn't really play any saints (maybe Biko and The Preacher's Wife, but that's probably it). He's always played flawed and conflicted protagonists, anti-heroes or outright assholes (from Glory to Malcolm X to Philidelphia to He Got Game). Even his coach in Remember The Titans was a truthfully an utter dick, who happened to be on the right side of the film's moral argument. I guess Eli in Book Of Eli has Saint-like qualities as well, but since he's also a mass-murderer in the movie, it's hard to call him a saint just because he quotes scripture. More like a zealot. That's why Denzel has been able to usurp the likes of Pacino or Nicholson or DeNiro in general perception as America's greatest living actor, while Hanks is still treading water as America's conscience. Even when critics tried to "type" Denzel as a "Good guy" actor before Training Day took him fully into anti-hero and villain territory, It was never strictly true. Just a lazy attempt to mould him as Poitier's heir (and Poitier unfortunately did have to play too many Saint like parts, and not enough roles of contradiction or complexity). Brando probably played more outright Saints than Denzel, especially during his "woke" SJW period in the late 50's and 60's.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 10, 2019 0:13:02 GMT
That's why Denzel has been able to usurp the likes of Pacino or Nicholson or DeNiro in general perception as America's greatest living actor
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 10, 2019 0:18:05 GMT
Memes again!?!
Awkward. Hoping that stuff was gone...you're one of the OG's bro. You're better than that lazy shit. Memes are for the young 'uns who can't debate.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 10, 2019 11:04:09 GMT
Ok, ok, let's get back on track! On the same lines as Ruffalo I'll pick another of that late 40s-early 50s American actors (48 currently) : Bobby Cannavale - a guy who may be making his move now too.
2 time Emmy winner, 2 time Tony nominee (and a big time player in that regard) - no Oscar nods but a couple memorable roles in Blue Jasmine and Danny Collins, etc. and a potential big 2019 with Motherless Brooklyn and The Irishman (which is one of several roles that could be far bigger than we think?).
He's one of those guys that everybody likes but maybe can't link that face with the name and he can do comedy and drama he's quite funny if you've ever seen him interviewed and like Ellen Barkin and Ed Norton he had a small screen comic triumph guesting on Modern Family too.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 13, 2019 13:31:35 GMT
Quick - who's the next Triple Crown winner? Well, it was Glenn Close - but alas, no. It most likely unless I'm forgetting someone appears to be Alan Arkin - not much of a theater career but 2 nods and one win, a more than solid film career (4 nods, 1 win) and currently enjoying success and that crack at an Emmy this September in The Kominsky Method - if he can get nodded - one of those "he might not get in, but if he does........." things.
Now, I'm a fan of his but earlier in this thread when we debated the comparisons with guys with a lead wins vs. supporting wins and some argued "a win is a win is a win" (I respectfully, say "No") and that this thread has becomes somewhat a TC thread in a way too I'd say Arkin is an example of proving my point - no one thinks "that" much of him onstage but he did it, or thinks much of his Oscar win etc.............but that's not to overlook a wonderful, varied and extremely long career......and he's got a bunch of nods across the 3 mediums too.
That's nothing to sneeze at and in his own way...........rather exemplary.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 13, 2019 15:04:46 GMT
Quick - who's the next Triple Crown winner? Well, it was Glenn Close - but alas, no. It most likely unless I'm forgetting someone appears to be Alan Arkin - not much of a theater career but 2 nods and one win, a more than solid film career (4 nods, 1 win) and currently enjoying success and that crack at an Emmy this September in The Kominsky Method - if he can get nodded - one of those "he might not get in, but if he does........." things. Now, I'm a fan of his but earlier in this thread when we debated the comparisons with guys with a lead wins vs. supporting wins and some argued "a win is a win is a win" (I respectfully, say "No") and that this thread has becomes somewhat a TC thread in a way too I'd say Arkin is an example of proving my point - no one thinks "that" much of him onstage but he did it, or thinks much of his Oscar win etc.............but that's not to overlook a wonderful, varied and extremely long career......and he's got a bunch of nods across the 3 mediums too. That's nothing to sneeze at and in his own way...........rather exemplary. I suspect Arkin will miss the Emmy win to someone like Shalhoub or, if they run him co-lead, to Douglas. Arkin's extremely underrated by most people, though. He's not a particularly flashy actor, but he's incredibly reliable and almost always is on his A-game. I think he was MVP of (the underappreciated) Stand-Up Guys, for instance, and I actually do think his Oscar win was deserved rather than simply being a veteran pick rather than being a more "likable" alternative to Murphy (because Arkin's totally known for not being crotchety). In a way, I'd lump Arkin in with Tommy Lee Jones: actors who don't immediately come to mind when thinking of great careers across all media, until you actually take a closer look.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 15:13:47 GMT
Quick - who's the next Triple Crown winner? I'm thinking John Lithgow right now - if the Roger Ailes film delivers.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 13, 2019 15:36:50 GMT
Quick - who's the next Triple Crown winner? I'm thinking John Lithgow right now - if the Roger Ailes film delivers. I would be utterly surprised if Lithgow won for that, even if it delivers, simply because Ailes is such a recent horror story that I think voters might be turned off, even if it's a great transformation. Kind of the Dick Cheney principle, although Cheney is still alive and that's what made me think that was what was going to keep Bale from winning. He'd need that undeniable narrative going from the absolute jump. The whole thing feels very Vice-y, now that I think about it.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 15, 2019 12:48:00 GMT
Today's actor is another "50ish guy" who actually can't compete for this crown really because as far as I know has said he won't do theater again because he had a bad experiences with it (and I saw one of his bad and unprofessional actually experiences, where he gave up on stage, and clearly wanted to walk off) - Paul Giamatti
An actor I often describe as the most overrated American actor by some but that doesn't mean he isn't good (he is) and can be (and has been) great a couple of times - he has his Emmy, has an Oscar nod and did theater a bit before he soured on it. He's a guy who if he changes his mind could continue to make a dent across the mediums - he still gets juicy supporting roles in film though not quite "nodworthy" ones.........though he easily could.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 17, 2019 14:31:34 GMT
Well, looking at this thread I realized that Streep, while mentioned in the OP has not had her male counterpart (in some ways) mentioned and could be looked at from a certain perspective and he hasn't even done one medium at all (TV) or in 30 years (theater), so he's an elephant in the room to discuss : Daniel Day-Lewis.
If we're calling the thread "Best Actor/Actress" well is DDL so great he trumps the medium question? Is the thread a sort of lie because it seeks to "equivocate" actors who should not be in the "Best" discussion to begin with - is this thread kinder to Rylance (DDL's generational equivalent imo) than Rylance deserves?
I don't think so - it's just Rylance's area of dominance an equal in work to film is just different - but in general it's a good question. Who are some actors who are gaining too much by looking at stage and TV than they really deserve to? Who are some of the actors who are being restrained by the premise too?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 17, 2019 15:18:26 GMT
Well, looking at this thread I realized that Streep, while mentioned in the OP has not had her male counterpart (in some ways) mentioned and could be looked at from a certain perspective and he hasn't even done one medium at all (TV) or in 30 years (theater), so he's an elephant in the room to discuss : Daniel Day-Lewis.If we're calling the thread "Best Actor/Actress" well is DDL so great he trumps the medium question? Is the thread a sort of lie because it seeks to "equivocate" actors who should not be in the "Best" discussion to begin with - is this thread kinder to Rylance (DDL's generational equivalent imo) than Rylance deserves? I don't think so - it's just Rylance's area of dominance an equal in work to film is just different - but in general it's a good question. Who are some actors who are gaining too much by looking at stage and TV than they really deserve to? Who are some of the actors who are being restrained by the premise too? Well, you know me: I don't think an actor needs to have dominance across different media (or even different genres) in order to be classed as one of the greats. Monet was a great painter but because he never sculpted, does that make him a lesser artist than one who did both (and maybe wasn't quite as good at painting)? I think it's a sign of strength and versatility to be able to accomplish so much in different fields, but I think that when you've got someone who so thoroughly dominated one sector (to the point that he is considered by many to be the top male actor, and whose method of acting has become so legendary that it has crossed into mainstream pop culture; it's remarkable how many DDL references are out there at the most random locations), them having an absence of TV and a lacking of stage is almost a non-factor. Daniel Day-Lewis is a unicorn. There aren't a whole lot of actors quite like him. Intensely private and who values his time with his family, he also is so utterly committed to his work that he spends months prepping for a role -- to ask him to do television, which is often a multi-year commitment, would be exhausting to the point of an imminent breakdown. You could say that he could heed Olivier's advice ("Why don't you try acting, dear boy?"), but the way in which Day-Lewis builds his characters and gets into their heads is so thorough and unique, and that's what puts the magic in his performances. Sure, you could have DDL show up every week, say his lines, and go home, but that's not what you're wanting from the master. Now, obviously that leaves a TV movie or miniseries open for discussion, and I have been vocal about Lincoln needing to have been a full-length miniseries dealing with the scope of Lincoln's presidency, but that's just a personal wish. I'm sure DDL has had offers and simply nothing has struck him as worth doing. The man only does four or five movies a decade (if you're lucky!) and he's only made four since the "Golden Age" of TV truly began. As for his stage work, well, obviously that's a story in and of itself. He tried it, found some acclaim, but in the end it wasn't for him and he walked away. Doesn't make him a weaker actor; it's just not his thing. Same thing with not doing franchise films or paycheck parts. He didn't need them, they didn't need him, so why force it? Day-Lewis was happy doing what he was doing (until he decided cobbling was more his speed), and if you've got that work ethic and can come up with that many iconic performances and win that many accolades, why bother changing it up? I consider Daniel Day-Lewis the greatest film actor to have ever lived. It's a great shame that he has seemingly stepped down the way he has, but I respect the move, and he's left us quite the legacy to pick apart, and a void that might never be filled. (Also, side-note: Rylance's stage credit is DDL-level as it is, and Wolf Hall is -- in my opinion -- the greatest television performance ever, so his reputation is more than deserved. That's why I'm really holding out hope for Waiting for the Barbarians, as it is such a great leading part for any great actor, and in the right hands, it could be a masterstroke. I trust Rylance and Guerra to deliver, but you never know.)
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 17, 2019 16:11:58 GMT
Marvelous post stephen and you know my feeling on DDL "retiring" is something else that is a separate thread in itself. That he left - if indeed he did really leave - with a remarkable role (literally THE greatest farewell role arguably imo) - that somehow melded something unique relative to his filmography in performance skill, which normally would be enough but also included things thematically with motifs about that - "ghosts" and "legacy/death" - in the role itself. Not only that it also served as something of a trick in the best possible way (in that the character is more or less entering into a deal with his accomplice.........and the accomplice for the actor (NOT the character) being his director).
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 17, 2019 16:21:44 GMT
Marvelous post stephen and you know my feeling on DDL "retiring" is something else that is a separate thread in itself. That he left - if indeed he did really leave - with a remarkable role (literally THE greatest farewell role arguably imo) - that somehow melded something unique relative to his filmography in performance skill, which normally would be enough but also included things thematically with motifs about that - "ghosts" and "legacy/death" - in the role itself. Not only that it also served as something of a trick in the best possible way (in that the character is more or less entering into a deal with his accomplice.........and the accomplice for the actor (NOT the character) being his director). Yeah, I've spoken at length about my thoughts on Day-Lewis's retirement, and that as long as it isn't health-related (which I was scared it was, considering there were pictures of Day-Lewis circulating around that time because he'd busted his arm, and he looked a little thinner than usual), I expect that he might rise from the proverbial dead in the future, but that it'll take a special role and director to coax him out of it. Day-Lewis goes through phases where he doesn't work, but this was the first time he'd openly declared he was retired, whereas the other times he just kinda dropped out of sight. But then, I did think Lincoln was the last leading role he'd do and that he'd start taking supporting parts, so what do I know? I expect that even though he's out of the game, it won't stop directors from going to him. He's real tight with PTA (and it can be argued he was as much responsible for the creation of Reynolds Woodcock as Anderson was), he gets along well with Spielberg (although Spielberg now has Rylance as his muse, which I am perfectly fine with), Sheridan wants to work with him again (good luck, Jim), Scorsese has begged him out of his sabbatical once before and would probably do it again if he had to . . . I think if Day-Lewis sees a juicy opportunity, he won't leave it on the line. But it has to be a special part, something that appeals to him. It's no mistake that most of the films he has made have been strong outside of him, or had some sort of "hook" to them. He's not the kind of guy who will take a part just because he might be the best thing about it; he wants quality, and that's (for me) an essential part of an actor's legacy.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 17, 2019 17:31:57 GMT
Marvelous post stephen and you know my feeling on DDL "retiring" is something else that is a separate thread in itself. That he left - if indeed he did really leave - with a remarkable role (literally THE greatest farewell role arguably imo) - that somehow melded something unique relative to his filmography in performance skill, which normally would be enough but also included things thematically with motifs about that - "ghosts" and "legacy/death" - in the role itself. Not only that it also served as something of a trick in the best possible way (in that the character is more or less entering into a deal with his accomplice.........and the accomplice for the actor (NOT the character) being his director). He's not the kind of guy who will take a part just because he might be the best thing about it; he wants quality, and that's (for me) an essential part of an actor's legacy. I think an essential part of an actors legacy is trying to ensure it remains as strong as it was long after retirement or even death, as it was in your heyday. As much as DDL has achieved (3 Oscars etc), I'm still not certain how strong his legacy will be (If he stays retired), 20-30 years from now, and that's because he seemed to aim at too narrow a demographic in his film choices (critics & AMPAS voters). Even Streep, the biggest oscarbaiter of all, has a populist streak, especially as she got older, that will have future generations watching her stuff. Nobody is going to watch Sophie's Choice for fun, but they probably might for The Devil Wears Prada or Mama Mia. I think DDL will still have some cinephiles rating him in the future, but I don't feel he'll have that iconic following with the general public like a Brando or a DeNiro, and it's down to the narrow, short-termist approach to his legacy. I don't think he'll fall out of memory as much as Paul Mini or Frederic March, but that's kind of the path he ended up going in.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 17, 2019 17:39:45 GMT
"I think an essential part of an actors legacy is trying to ensure it remains as strong as it was long after retirement or even death, as it was in your heyday."
This is true but the role of populism is difficult to assess because the film medium and its role in the culture and in that populist sense is changing - in the "Whitewashing" thread I argued Pacino could have 2 pivotal roles removed from his legacy (or diminished), in The Irishman thread I argued De Niro's performance possibly won't be able to be easily assessed at all perhaps, etc.
So how you mean populism is a component but with a million things happening simultaneously in play too - it may be that eventually the narrow strain in DDL's work in some ways is the new populism (now I'm stretching that point but it's possible is all I'm saying).
|
|