|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 17, 2019 17:51:34 GMT
It's not changed that much. Audiences are essential to an actor or artists legacy. That will never change.
The messed up thing is I feel like Day-Lewis could have broken out of the gilded cage he placed himself in. It's not like he has to go out and make a superhero movie or whatever. But a few well chosen contemporary roles or movies in genres not "beneath" his lofty standards (thrillers, noir, whatever) could have done wonders for him and his long term perception to wider audiences.
As it is, he's more a walking "reputation" than someone whose movies general audiences actively seek out. If DDL had done a few things like Man On Fire or Sicario, he might be far more beloved by wider audiences, and still have his rep intact.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 17, 2019 18:05:04 GMT
It's not changed that much. Audiences are essential to an actor or artists legacy. That will never change. The messed up thing is I feel like Day-Lewis could have broken out of the gilded cage he placed himself in. It's not like he has to go out and make a superhero movie or whatever. But a few well chosen contemporary roles or movies in genres not "beneath" his lofty standards (thrillers, noir, whatever) could have done wonders for him and his long term perception to wider audiences. Yes that's true and I would say that you know for every gain there is a loss - he would have had to do a little more (at least) and for him to do a little more was an impossibility (see stephen's post). Essentially in this regard for the actors called great - it's usually the initial strike vs. the totality - or Brando vs. Olivier - to simplify it. DDL in some ways had neither - he had a great streak older after his young initial strike and he didn't have the overwhelming amount of Olivier's totality of work at all. Usually to be called great it's one of those things......... In DDL's case he is closer to Paul Scofield's film career but with far greater fame........that's one of the reasons that inspired him as my pick in this thread today and the Rylance example I gave. To mention them in the same breath implies that the 3 mediums all carry a significant weight to them, but to many they do not really and to mention Rylance with him inspires head scratching relative the long shadow that comes from one's unique film stardom.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 17, 2019 18:49:16 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. 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. I dunno: There Will Be Blood is on the path to attain a near- Citizen Kane status when it comes to the new century (I know we're barely a fifth of the way through it, but still), Lincoln looks to be the defining portrayal of one of the most iconic figures in American history, and he's got more crowd-pleasing fare like Gangs of New York in his canon. Shit, almost every high-schooler will have seen The Crucible as well, as it's practically part of the curriculum now. And that's not getting into those films like My Left Foot and Phantom Thread and A Room with a View that are a bit more arthouse but immediately command your respect. Yes, populist fare is nice to have, but I'd argue that does not necessarily need to be a mark of one's enduring legacy (especially as so much populist fare is largely dismissed in the evaluation of an actor's career in hindsight). Yes, Streep has a lot of those types of films to her credit, but she's kind of transcended to a point where her name has the sort of clout that immediately brings the reputation to it. People who might not have seen Meryl Streep's work know who she is. De Niro's like that, Pacino's like that, Washington's like that. And I think Day-Lewis, who might've been seen as more obscure simply because he's an intensely private individual, transcended that around the time of his third Oscar (look at how the media celebrated him, not just the voters, but how everyone was anointing him as the world's greatest actor; Muni and March didn't have Time saying that). His name is synonymous with acting greatness as those aforementioned are. Yes, his catalogue is a bit sparser than normal, but he also traded quantity for quality. The work is there, it looks like it will largely endure, and while he may not be as immediately recognizable as someone like Brando or De Niro, I think he's going to be regarded as a much more respected figure as people get into films and realize the importance and essentialness of his canon. In a way, I think DDL is being compared to the wrong sorts. He's not a De Niro or a Pacino, but he's also not a Muni or a March. I liken him as more of an Orson Welles (in front of the camera): a compelling figure who essentially redefined what a "method actor" is (as most people nowadays mistake what the original definition of the word is for what DDL does), whose personal life is a mystery even though there is definitely some intriguing stuff in his early days, who never likes to talk about his process and who disappears for long stretches. His mystique added to the legend. Don't get me wrong: I would've loved it if Daniel Day-Lewis broke into more genre fare as well. I don't believe an artist ever can "sell out" because in the end, it's a career and a way to make a living. And surely, Day-Lewis had offers on the table to do parts like that . . . .and to be fair to him, I think The Last of the Mohicans is DDL's Man on Fire; it just happens to fit in his method/period piece sensibilities.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 17, 2019 22:39:30 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. 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. I dunno: There Will Be Blood is on the path to attain a near- Citizen Kane status when it comes to the new century (I know we're barely a fifth of the way through it, but still), Lincoln looks to be the defining portrayal of one of the most iconic figures in American history, and he's got more crowd-pleasing fare like Gangs of New York in his canon. Shit, almost every high-schooler will have seen The Crucible as well, as it's practically part of the curriculum now. And that's not getting into those films like My Left Foot and Phantom Thread and A Room with a View that are a bit more arthouse but immediately command your respect. Yes, populist fare is nice to have, but I'd argue that does not necessarily need to be a mark of one's enduring legacy (especially as so much populist fare is largely dismissed in the evaluation of an actor's career in hindsight). Yes, Streep has a lot of those types of films to her credit, but she's kind of transcended to a point where her name has the sort of clout that immediately brings the reputation to it. People who might not have seen Meryl Streep's work know who she is. De Niro's like that, Pacino's like that, Washington's like that. And I think Day-Lewis, who might've been seen as more obscure simply because he's an intensely private individual, transcended that around the time of his third Oscar (look at how the media celebrated him, not just the voters, but how everyone was anointing him as the world's greatest actor; Muni and March didn't have Time saying that). His name is synonymous with acting greatness as those aforementioned are. Yes, his catalogue is a bit sparser than normal, but he also traded quantity for quality. The work is there, it looks like it will largely endure, and while he may not be as immediately recognizable as someone like Brando or De Niro, I think he's going to be regarded as a much more respected figure as people get into films and realize the importance and essentialness of his canon. In a way, I think DDL is being compared to the wrong sorts. He's not a De Niro or a Pacino, but he's also not a Muni or a March. I liken him as more of an Orson Welles (in front of the camera): a compelling figure who essentially redefined what a "method actor" is (as most people nowadays mistake what the original definition of the word is for what DDL does), whose personal life is a mystery even though there is definitely some intriguing stuff in his early days, who never likes to talk about his process and who disappears for long stretches. His mystique added to the legend. Don't get me wrong: I would've loved it if Daniel Day-Lewis broke into more genre fare as well. I don't believe an artist ever can "sell out" because in the end, it's a career and a way to make a living. And surely, Day-Lewis had offers on the table to do parts like that . . . .and to be fair to him, I think The Last of the Mohicans is DDL's Man on Fire; it just happens to fit in his method/period piece sensibilities. Well Time also put Kate Winslet on their cover cailing her the "Best Actress" (extremely arguable, even then) and put George Clooney on their cover calling him "The Last Movie Star" (complete nonsense"). Around that periold, Time had become something of a shameles PR pitstop for their editorial staff to emblazon hyperbolic statements about highly connected movie stars, so their "greatest actor" cover for DDL was extremely on brand at the time. And hey, those covers helped Winslet and DDL bag their Oscars, so the mission was accomplished. Though thankfully, I don't think anyone really buys that "last movie star" shite Hollywood has always tried to sell regarding Clooney. Point is, Time is not above some PR puffery for the Hollywood elite, so while it was great for DDL's Oscar campaign that the editor was willing to sign off on that cover, I wouldnt overstate it's broader significance. It was to help him win an Oscar, and DDL's people and Spielberg would have been negotiating that cover for months. It was for a short term gain. I would defintely say Muni had an equivalent reputation to DDL in the 1930's, Time PR piece cover or no. Your Orson Welles comparison is interesting...but I just can't go along with that because of Welles being such an influential director. I do think DDL's association with There Will Be Blood will help his legacy with cinephiles. I disagree that populist films are largely dismissed in evaluation of an actors career. They are absolutely key. Pacino and DeNiro are who they are because they came to define one of the most populist genres: crime/gangster films.Goodfellas is populist .Godfather may be considered a masterpiece with artistic merit, but it's also a populist movie. Same for James Cagney and Bogart and Mitchum. Populism does not automatically mean absence of quality or artistic value. Most of the great film icons find quality within populist films or genres. DDL went fully the prestige/snob route which had massive short term gains for him, but I'd argue long term implications for his legacy. We'll see. I'm not as confident as you of his filmography enduring strongly across generations, because he didn't mix enough populism with quality (which he undoubtedly had), but we'll see. I could be wrong, and his mystique and other factors might compensate somewhat
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 17, 2019 22:53:11 GMT
Well Time also put Kate Winslet on their cover cailing her the "Best Actress" (extremely arguable, even then) and put George Clooney on their cover calling him "The Last Movie Star" (complete nonsense"). Around that periold, Time had become something of a shameles PR pitstop for their editorial staff to emblazon hyperbolic statements about highly connected movie stars, so their "greatest actor" cover for DDL was extremely on brand at the time. And hey, those covers helped Winslet and DDL bag their Oscars, so the was mission accomplished. Though thankfully, I don't think anyone really buys that "last movie star" shite Hollywood has always tried to sell regarding Clooney. Point is, Time is not above some PR puffery for the Hollywood elite, so while it was great for DDL's Oscar campaign that the editor was willing to sign off on that cover, I wouldnt overstate it's broader significance. It was to help him win an Oscar, and DDL's people and Spielberg would have been negotiating that cover for months. It was for a short term gain. I would defintely say Muni had an equivalent reputation to DDL in the 1930's, Time PR piece cover or no. To be fair, I think Winslet's cover was more about her imminent victory for Best Actress that year (a scant two weeks before she won the prize), rather than calling her the best actress alive. Day-Lewis's definitely benefitted his campaign (not that it needed the help), but his felt more like a coronation and a consecration, hence the "greatest" highlight. Obviously you can disagree the merits of that, but it says a lot that a man without the blockbuster pedigree of Winslet or Clooney got that declarative superlative on the cover of Time magazine, a pretty populist magazine as it is. That's why I think that 2012 was a crucial year for Day-Lewis in terms of his reputation and legacy. Populist films don't hurt (unless they're bad, and even then it's only if there's a lot of them), but after a while it becomes a numbers game. Who has more films that stand the test of time? It's much too early to declare on Day-Lewis, especially when his latter-day career ( Gangs onwards) is so recent. It remains to be seen how Phantom Thread will age, for instance.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 17, 2019 23:03:34 GMT
C'mon Stephen, you really don't think Spielberg's juice and pull played a part in that Time "coronation"? I know you aint that naive.
Spielberg has more pull than Winslet and Clooney combined. Far more. DDL's coronation was as much to the benefit of his movie as it was to DDL himself. I'm not saying DDL is undeserving of various accolades or plaudits, but when you realise the behind the scenes machinations of a lot of these things, you stop always taking them at face value.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 17, 2019 23:54:49 GMT
C'mon Stephen, you really don't think Spielberg's juice and pull played a part in that Time "coronation"? I know you aint that naive. Spielberg has more pull than Winslet and Clooney combined. Far more. DDL's coronation was as much to the benefit of his movie as it was to DDL himself. I'm not saying DDL is undeserving of various accolades or plaudits, but when you realise the behind the scenes machinations of a lot of these things, you stop always taking them at face value. Oh, I'm sure Spielberg and the studio's clout helped that. Of course it did. I acknowledged that. But the fact that a populist magazine like Time went along with it and helped push that narrative for an actor who isn't as much of a "celebrity" figure as Winslet and Clooney speaks volumes. I don't much care about what the message on that cover is, but when you see just how many people saw that and how DDL's rep grew after that in the public consciousness . . . I mean, it says a lot. You started seeing DDL cited as being an inspiring force more and more often with younger actors, you saw comparisons being drawn more and more often with other method actors and how DDL is considered the zenith in that respect (often disparagingly to the other actors in question, i.e. Leto in Suicide Squad), you saw his retirement build a narrative that might very well have helped his film do as well as it did (debatable, but it was being advertised as his last movie), etc., etc. Time didn't publish that article in a vacuum, but they did publish it, and pushed that narrative into the mainstream. Now all of a sudden, a guy who has a much smaller resume than De Niro and Streep and Denzel (and a deceptively smaller profile) is suddenly an A-list force in his own right, headlining a film by the world's most famous director, who could've had anyone he wanted in the role . . . and yet he had to bust ass just to convince him to do it. Who says no to Spielberg? Who says no to him seven times?! Before 2012, he was a favorite among cinephile and had a couple of popular films to his name, but he was still (despite being a two-time Oscar-winner) relatively obscure to other actors who had attained the same honor. 2012 was his blockbuster year, his coronation year, and it radically changed his perception from mainstream movie-goers. Will it hold? Who's to say? But I genuinely don't think Day-Lewis will vanish into the ether. He will be remembered. Will it be to the extent of De Niro or Pacino or Nicholson or Washington? Maybe not, but there's no real way to determine that one way or the other at this moment. I will say that it should be noted that unlike these folks, he isn't an American, which perhaps makes his perception somewhat different.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 18, 2019 22:08:08 GMT
C'mon Stephen, you really don't think Spielberg's juice and pull played a part in that Time "coronation"? I know you aint that naive. Spielberg has more pull than Winslet and Clooney combined. Far more. DDL's coronation was as much to the benefit of his movie as it was to DDL himself. I'm not saying DDL is undeserving of various accolades or plaudits, but when you realise the behind the scenes machinations of a lot of these things, you stop always taking them at face value. Oh, I'm sure Spielberg and the studio's clout helped that. Of course it did. I acknowledged that. But the fact that a populist magazine like Time went along with it and helped push that narrative for an actor who isn't as much of a "celebrity" figure as Winslet and Clooney speaks volumes. I don't much care about what the message on that cover is, but when you see just how many people saw that and how DDL's rep grew after that in the public consciousness . . . I mean, it says a lot. You started seeing DDL cited as being an inspiring force more and more often with younger actors, you saw comparisons being drawn more and more often with other method actors and how DDL is considered the zenith in that respect (often disparagingly to the other actors in question, i.e. Leto in Suicide Squad), you saw his retirement build a narrative that might very well have helped his film do as well as it did (debatable, but it was being advertised as his last movie), etc., etc. Time didn't publish that article in a vacuum, but they did publish it, and pushed that narrative into the mainstream. Now all of a sudden, a guy who has a much smaller resume than De Niro and Streep and Denzel (and a deceptively smaller profile) is suddenly an A-list force in his own right, headlining a film by the world's most famous director, who could've had anyone he wanted in the role . . . and yet he had to bust ass just to convince him to do it. Who says no to Spielberg? Who says no to him seven times?! Before 2012, he was a favorite among cinephile and had a couple of popular films to his name, but he was still (despite being a two-time Oscar-winner) relatively obscure to other actors who had attained the same honor. 2012 was his blockbuster year, his coronation year, and it radically changed his perception from mainstream movie-goers. Will it hold? Who's to say? But I genuinely don't think Day-Lewis will vanish into the ether. He will be remembered. Will it be to the extent of De Niro or Pacino or Nicholson or Washington? Maybe not, but there's no real way to determine that one way or the other at this moment. I will say that it should be noted that unlike these folks, he isn't an American, which perhaps makes his perception somewhat different. Good post. What did you make of the articles after DDL announced his retirement, positing that Denzel should be regraded as the world's greatest living actor? Some were saying it's irrelevant if DDL was retiring or not, and that Denzel should wear the crown regardless. Pretty big change from DDL's 2012 "coronation" period, when DDL didn't even appear to have a rival to most in the media. Do you see that as a sign of media fickleness? deadline.com/2017/06/daniel-day-lewis-denzel-washington-greatest-living-actor-star-wars-han-solo-ron-howard-phil-lord-chrisopher-miller-1202121504/www.theringer.com/movies/2017/11/21/16682866/denzel-daywww.awardsdaily.com/2018/08/19/denzel-washington-magic/
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 18, 2019 22:34:35 GMT
I mean, it all comes down to personal opinion, but I'll try and address each one: Fleming seemed to think in the Deadline article that he believes Daniel Day-Lewis to be better because it took him stepping down for anyone else to be able to challenge for the crown, as both Denzel and De Niro were perceived to be competing for it but were running second to DDL. Bart's argument for judging the actor based on the void they leave when they retire/die is interesting, but I'd say it kind of lacks weight in Day-Lewis's case because his catalogue was so sparse and you never knew when he was going to drop another project on you until well into production. The Ringer makes it abundantly clear they back Washington for that title, but they don't really go into the reason why. Am I missing the full article, because that link just goes to Denzel-related links that don't really discuss his merits in that superlative fashion. Phillips at Awards Daily argues that Washington has the edge over Day-Lewis purely by quantity of his work being up there with the quality. That's a fair argument, but again, I don't necessarily think penalizing DDL for not doing the same amount of movies as his peers is the right move. So what if he didn't make movies once a year? It's his prerogative. But the article does go into what makes Washington a great actor, a great movie star, and taps into what it is about him that makes him unique. Yeah, I don't have any arguments against that. In the end, I don't think you can verifiably crown one actor or the other as being the greatest, because how do you quantify it? Do you go by consistency? Do you go by amount of masterpieces, regardless of the amount of crap you might've done in between? Do you go by longevity? Do you go by breadth of catalogue across different media? Do you go by reliable box-office pull and prolific output? Do you go by selectivity? Some? All? None of the above? I mean, just in our own little bubble, there's not really a whole lot of agreement, so when you've got other little bubbles at publications like Time or Deadline printing out their own feelings on it, they only exist really to foment discussion and debate. Which is cool, and does evince some intriguing results when it comes to seeing how actors might be viewed as a collective, and using that as a way to forecast how their reps might age. If Time decided, unbidden by any awards campaigning, to anoint Denzel next week as the world's greatest actor, I'd read the article and see what they say. I may not necessarily agree with it on my own rankings, but I definitely see the argument and he probably hits more of those above-mentioned criteria more than guys like De Niro, Pacino or, yes, even Day-Lewis.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 18, 2019 22:53:38 GMT
One of the things to remember is that a lot of times the media is engaging in their version of our own "Greatest actors threads" here without our sophistication actually. There are only so many guys in the running for greatest actor alive - greatest American even less - GOAT level even less, but it's the same names usually in play. The media doesn't have to be fickle because the public will do it for them - for example I do it - I always loved Willem Dafoe, but in the last few years I've become so disgusted that he's never called "maybe" the best American of his (80s) generation (and he fits this thread topic too), that I've advocated his work much more lately. I've also advocated for Bridges a lot more than I used to because he's an in-betweener and his "non-iconic" thing wrongly counts against him - sure he had fame in the 70s but I think of him in the 80s class and for age (I know the arguments against that)......so that's my flag to fly lately personally. The truth is that is the media counts on you (us) turning hot or cold on actors and souring on some and savoring some and tries to match such articles to cultural drifts, but cultural drifts aren't the actors work, and if you ever notice talk about the work is almost never in play. Too messy that
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 18, 2019 23:09:32 GMT
One of the things to remember is that a lot of times the media is engaging in their version of our own "Greatest actors threads" here without our sophistication actually. There are only so many guys in the running for greatest actor alive - greatest American even less - GOAT level even less, but it's the same names usually in play. The media doesn't have to be fickle because the public will do it for them - for example I do it - I always loved Willem Dafoe, but in the last few years I've become so disgusted that he's never called "maybe" the best American of his (80s) generation (and he fits this thread topic too), that I've advocated his work much more lately. I've also advocated for Bridges a lot more than I used to because he's an in-betweener and his "non-iconic" thing wrongly counts against him - sure he had fame in the 70s but I think of him in the 80s class and for age (I know the arguments against that)......so that's my flag to fly lately personally. The truth is that is the media counts on you (us) turning hot or cold on actors and souring on some and savoring some and tries to match such articles to cultural drifts, but cultural drifts aren't the actors work, and if you ever notice talk about the work is almost never in play. Too messy that I mean, there's something to be said for the fact that a lot of the truly great actors never get their due purely because they are character actors, or lack the glamour of leading men/women. Look at someone like Steve Buscemi: probably one of the most consistently fantastic actors out there, has done television to great acclaim and is the consummate supporting actor, but he'll never get the respect of some of her peers purely because he's a odd-looking character. Dafoe's in that mold as well.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 18, 2019 23:16:03 GMT
I mean, it all comes down to personal opinion, but I'll try and address each one: Fleming seemed to think in the Deadline article that he believes Daniel Day-Lewis to be better because it took him stepping down for anyone else to be able to challenge for the crown, as both Denzel and De Niro were perceived to be competing for it but were running second to DDL. Bart's argument for judging the actor based on the void they leave when they retire/die is interesting, but I'd say it kind of lacks weight in Day-Lewis's case because his catalogue was so sparse and you never knew when he was going to drop another project on you until well into production. The Ringer makes it abundantly clear they back Washington for that title, but they don't really go into the reason why. Am I missing the full article, because that link just goes to Denzel-related links that don't really discuss his merits in that superlative fashion. Phillips at Awards Daily argues that Washington has the edge over Day-Lewis purely by quantity of his work being up there with the quality. That's a fair argument, but again, I don't necessarily think penalizing DDL for not doing the same amount of movies as his peers is the right move. So what if he didn't make movies once a year? It's his prerogative. But the article does go into what makes Washington a great actor, a great movie star, and taps into what it is about him that makes him unique. Yeah, I don't have any arguments against that. In the end, I don't think you can verifiably crown one actor or the other as being the greatest, because how do you quantify it? Do you go by consistency? Do you go by amount of masterpieces, regardless of the amount of crap you might've done in between? Do you go by longevity? Do you go by breadth of catalogue across different media? Do you go by reliable box-office pull and prolific output? Do you go by selectivity? Some? All? None of the above? I mean, just in our own little bubble, there's not really a whole lot of agreement, so when you've got other little bubbles at publications like Time or Deadline printing out their own feelings on it, they only exist really to foment discussion and debate. Which is cool, and does evince some intriguing results when it comes to seeing how actors might be viewed as a collective, and using that as a way to forecast how their reps might age. If Time decided, unbidden by any awards campaigning, to anoint Denzel next week as the world's greatest actor, I'd read the article and see what they say. I may not necessarily agree with it on my own rankings, but I definitely see the argument and he probably hits more of those above-mentioned criteria more than guys like De Niro, Pacino or, yes, even Day-Lewis. The Ringer was more of an overall celerbration of Denzel being the "greatest living actor" as opposed to some sort of debate suggesting he has rivals (Which is why they say don't @ us. It's not a debate for them. DDL or anyone else comes after him). Most of the linked articles talk about different things that make him so great or interesting, but I suppose the closest one that goes into conventional detail for his case for being the world's greatest actor, is the article that talks about which films they feel best showcase his talent www.theringer.com/movies/2017/11/21/16673986/best-denzel-washington-moviesIt's interesting how reputations wax and wane, and how the media can annoint a new favorite as the "greatest", and move on from them, or split loyalties pretty quickly as well. This is why audiences are so important in the overall legacy equation, imho. If you truly got them, they'll stay with you, and aren't as fickle as the media.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 18, 2019 23:41:48 GMT
One of the things to remember is that a lot of times the media is engaging in their version of our own "Greatest actors threads" here without our sophistication actually. There are only so many guys in the running for greatest actor alive - greatest American even less - GOAT level even less, but it's the same names usually in play. The media doesn't have to be fickle because the public will do it for them - for example I do it - I always loved Willem Dafoe, but in the last few years I've become so disgusted that he's never called "maybe" the best American of his (80s) generation (and he fits this thread topic too), that I've advocated his work much more lately. I've also advocated for Bridges a lot more than I used to because he's an in-betweener and his "non-iconic" thing wrongly counts against him - sure he had fame in the 70s but I think of him in the 80s class and for age (I know the arguments against that)......so that's my flag to fly lately personally. The truth is that is the media counts on you (us) turning hot or cold on actors and souring on some and savoring some and tries to match such articles to cultural drifts, but cultural drifts aren't the actors work, and if you ever notice talk about the work is almost never in play. Too messy that Oh the media are defintely fickle....It's usually the public that keeps them honest. Remember how hard they used to push Sean Penn as the "best actor of his generation" (not quite the greatest actor alive props DDL and Denzel have recieved in recent years, but still impressive). They've dropped his ass like hot bricks, maybe because they realised the public would never buy what they were formerly trying to sell. Now with Penn, the media are generally still respectful of his abilities, but it's clear he's been demoted by them big time in the pecking order. Now it's like an ex-lover who says, "I don't know that guy"
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 18, 2019 23:48:39 GMT
One of the things to remember is that a lot of times the media is engaging in their version of our own "Greatest actors threads" here without our sophistication actually. There are only so many guys in the running for greatest actor alive - greatest American even less - GOAT level even less, but it's the same names usually in play. The media doesn't have to be fickle because the public will do it for them - for example I do it - I always loved Willem Dafoe, but in the last few years I've become so disgusted that he's never called "maybe" the best American of his (80s) generation (and he fits this thread topic too), that I've advocated his work much more lately. I've also advocated for Bridges a lot more than I used to because he's an in-betweener and his "non-iconic" thing wrongly counts against him - sure he had fame in the 70s but I think of him in the 80s class and for age (I know the arguments against that)......so that's my flag to fly lately personally. The truth is that is the media counts on you (us) turning hot or cold on actors and souring on some and savoring some and tries to match such articles to cultural drifts, but cultural drifts aren't the actors work, and if you ever notice talk about the work is almost never in play. Too messy that I mean, there's something to be said for the fact that a lot of the truly great actors never get their due purely because they are character actors, or lack the glamour of leading men/women. Look at someone like Steve Buscemi: probably one of the most consistently fantastic actors out there, has done television to great acclaim and is the consummate supporting actor, but he'll never get the respect of some of her peers purely because he's a odd-looking character. Dafoe's in that mold as well. Yeah, to me, that's a pointless complaint. It's always been that way, and isn't some new development. Someone like Dafoe is a brilliant character actor, who has never transcended that in a way say, Dustin Hoffman did for about 15 years. Dafoe remains too niche. It's harder for an odd-looking character actor to force their way up the pantheon, but it can be done. Philip Seymour Hoffman was well on his way to doing it before his death.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 18, 2019 23:49:40 GMT
One of the things to remember is that a lot of times the media is engaging in their version of our own "Greatest actors threads" here without our sophistication actually. There are only so many guys in the running for greatest actor alive - greatest American even less - GOAT level even less, but it's the same names usually in play. The media doesn't have to be fickle because the public will do it for them - for example I do it - I always loved Willem Dafoe, but in the last few years I've become so disgusted that he's never called "maybe" the best American of his (80s) generation (and he fits this thread topic too), that I've advocated his work much more lately. I've also advocated for Bridges a lot more than I used to because he's an in-betweener and his "non-iconic" thing wrongly counts against him - sure he had fame in the 70s but I think of him in the 80s class and for age (I know the arguments against that)......so that's my flag to fly lately personally. The truth is that is the media counts on you (us) turning hot or cold on actors and souring on some and savoring some and tries to match such articles to cultural drifts, but cultural drifts aren't the actors work, and if you ever notice talk about the work is almost never in play. Too messy that Oh the media are defintely fickle....It's usually the public that keeps them honest. Remember how hard they used to push Sean Penn as the "best actor of his generation" (not quite the greatest actor alive props DDL and Denzel have recieved in recent years, but still impressive). They've dropped his ass like hot bricks, maybe because they realised the public would never buy what they were formerly trying to sell. Now with Penn, the media are generally still respectful of his abilities, but it's clear he's been demoted by them big time in the pecking order. Now it's like an ex-lover who says, "I don't know that guy" Well you know I see what you're saying but my point was slightly different there: you can still think of him as best film actor (or at least most gifted) of his generation (I do) or not but very little is truly work based ; the ex-lover who says "I don't know that guy" is engaging in the same shell game as Peter Bart etc. though ......but if we look at the sex tapes work we can judge Sean Penis Penn just on that alone.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 18, 2019 23:55:29 GMT
Yeah, to me, that's a pointless complaint. It's always been that way, and isn't some new development. Someone like Dafoe is a brilliant character actor, who has never transcended that in a way say, Dustin Hoffman did for about 15 years. Dafoe remains too niche. It's harder for an odd-looking character actor to force their way up the pantheon, but it can be done. Philip Seymour Hoffman was well on his way to doing it before his death. I actually meant to mention Hoffman but scrubbed him from my reply. I actually think Hoffman was perhaps the exception to prove the rule -- he was an acclaimed stage actor, but he had still barely been able to shed the character actor stigma entirely before his death. Perhaps he would have done so, as he was poised to do a TV series right before his death and might've been able to achieve that marquee level, but he was still more or less a character actor who lucked into a great opportunity at the right time, parlayed it into a Best Actor win (which carries with it a magnifying effect) that saw him coast to a couple of token supporting nods in the rest of the decade. The Master (which still saw him denigrated to supporting) felt like a true capitalization and, I think, was the role that was going to see him sail to greater heights, and his projects immediately following do seem to speak to that, as he was being seen more and more as a potential lead . . . but he was very much a rarity in that regard, and we have no idea how he would've continued to press the issue because he died at that crossroads.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 18, 2019 23:58:15 GMT
Ehhh....I'm glad the whole Penn thing is a distant memory. Used to find it a bit ridiculous and insulting in a generation with not only DDL and Denzel, but Oldman as well. To be honest, he benefitted a lot in media-write-ups from being the only white American of that bunch.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 19, 2019 0:20:49 GMT
Yeah, to me, that's a pointless complaint. It's always been that way, and isn't some new development. Someone like Dafoe is a brilliant character actor, who has never transcended that in a way say, Dustin Hoffman did for about 15 years. Dafoe remains too niche. It's harder for an odd-looking character actor to force their way up the pantheon, but it can be done. Philip Seymour Hoffman was well on his way to doing it before his death. I actually meant to mention Hoffman but scrubbed him from my reply. I actually think Hoffman was perhaps the exception to prove the rule -- he was an acclaimed stage actor, but he had still barely been able to shed the character actor stigma entirely before his death. Perhaps he would have done so, as he was poised to do a TV series right before his death and might've been able to achieve that marquee level, but he was still more or less a character actor who lucked into a great opportunity at the right time, parlayed it into a Best Actor win (which carries with it a magnifying effect) that saw him coast to a couple of token supporting nods in the rest of the decade. The Master (which still saw him denigrated to supporting) felt like a true capitalization and, I think, was the role that was going to see him sail to greater heights, and his projects immediately following do seem to speak to that, as he was being seen more and more as a potential lead . . . but he was very much a rarity in that regard, and we have no idea how he would've continued to press the issue because he died at that crossroads. PSH was one of those guys who, despite not being conventionally attractive, could carry himself onscreen with the confidence of a leading man. I've always said that in The Master, he reminded me of Laurence Olivier, in his prime leading man days in the 40's or 50's. He carries himself like he's a handsome guy and you buy it. He had the confidence/cockiness in The Talented Mr Ripley as well. PSH could actually play suave. Yes, he was often called upon to play schlubs or oddballs, but he could transcend in a way Paul Giamnati or Steve Buscemi or even Dafoe couldn't quite (Dafoe always feels a bit weird or off-kilter, even when playing conventional protagonists). I reckon he could have got there eventually. In the 70'S where guys like Hackman and Dustin Hoffman were making the leap, he definitely could have done it
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 19, 2019 0:32:40 GMT
From Kemble on stage to Valentino in silents to many in the screen era its a link between looks and seductiveness and they are not the same things. I'd venture to guess there's very few scenes you can think of actors - great actors - playing a seduction in scenes in films - yet very few actors are considered great if they can't seduce male/female audiences in some way. That in a way ties back to DDL and his posting by me in this thread - he has a quality that since so few had it he seems to trump them - he had the seductiveness of Olivier and the immediacy of a modern actor actor (take your pick) - I am pretty outspoken on what I like and don't about him but that combination was something else and no one, none in his generation had it - American or British. Another topic perhaps but since your discussing appearance that aspect is an elusive one - its not the same as being "attractive" it's acting and exuding seductiveness. Like I said, goes back to Kemble ......probably before I'd imagine. Actor of his generation he was
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 19, 2019 3:39:16 GMT
Fleming seemed to think in the Deadline article that he believes Daniel Day-Lewis to be better because it took him stepping down for anyone else to be able to challenge for the crown, as both Denzel and De Niro were perceived to be competing for it but were running second to DDL. Bringing it back to the Deadline article, I re-read it, and think you got this conclusion mistaken regarding Fleming's stance on who is the world's greatest actor out of DDL and Denzel. At the start of the article, Fleming says; "If you asked me who held that title two weeks ago, it would have been a toss-up between Daniel Day-Lewis and Denzel Washington, and those guys still have one last chance to decide it" Fleming was talking about the then upcoming Oscar race, where they both got nominated for Phantom Thread and Roman J Israel Esq respectively. Didn't really decide much, as another guy won Fleming initial answer to the question is that it's dead even between DDL and Denzel while both were still active, and he couldn't actually make a pick....not that Daniel Day-Lewis was better and it takes his retirement to consider Denzel worthy of taking the crown. He picked Denzel outright on the basis of DDL retirement and he had to give an answer other than "toss-up", and the DeNiro mention just seems like him throwing another name out there, so they don't just spend the entire article only talking about DDL and Denzel
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 19, 2019 3:57:03 GMT
Bringing it back to the Deadline article, I re-read it, and think you got this conclusion mistaken regarding Fleming's stance on who is the world's greatest actor out of DDL and Denzel. At the start of the article, Fleming says; "If you asked me who held that title two weeks ago, it would have been a toss-up between Daniel Day-Lewis and Denzel Washington, and those guys still have one last chance to decide it" Fleming was talking about the then upcoming Oscar race, where they both got nominated for Phantom Thread and Roman J Israel Esq respectively. Didn't really decide much, as another guy won Fleming initial answer to the question is that it's dead even between DDL and Denzel while both were still active, and he couldn't actually make a pick....not that Daniel Day-Lewis was better and it takes his retirement to consider Denzel worthy of taking the crown. He picked Denzel outright on the basis of DDL retirement and he had to give an answer other than "toss-up", and the DeNiro mention just seems like him throwing another name out there, so they don't just spend the entire article only talking about DDL and Denzel I could also make the argument that when he says "Daniel Day-Lewis’ retirement announcement begs the question: who takes over as Greatest Living Actor?" at the start, he seems to imply that, at the moment, it's DDL that holds that title (maybe as a holdover from that Time declaration), and that the 2016 Oscar race would decide if Washington could dethrone him before the retirement took effect. Although as you say, it didn't really do much for that, because Oldman (sigh) won. And honestly, I don't think that race affected their status one bit. I do wonder, though, how it would've gone if Phantom Thread had come out a year earlier (or if Denzel's projects had swapped years) so that you have Day-Lewis's swan song tango against Washington at (in my opinion) his peak. That would've been a challenge for the ages. (I should also point out that I tried to find some other articles where both men were mentioned in discussion over who was preferred, and I found that the discussion amongst you, me and pacinoyes on here last May was in the top three results.)
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 19, 2019 4:25:24 GMT
Bringing it back to the Deadline article, I re-read it, and think you got this conclusion mistaken regarding Fleming's stance on who is the world's greatest actor out of DDL and Denzel. At the start of the article, Fleming says; "If you asked me who held that title two weeks ago, it would have been a toss-up between Daniel Day-Lewis and Denzel Washington, and those guys still have one last chance to decide it" Fleming was talking about the then upcoming Oscar race, where they both got nominated for Phantom Thread and Roman J Israel Esq respectively. Didn't really decide much, as another guy won Fleming initial answer to the question is that it's dead even between DDL and Denzel while both were still active, and he couldn't actually make a pick....not that Daniel Day-Lewis was better and it takes his retirement to consider Denzel worthy of taking the crown. He picked Denzel outright on the basis of DDL retirement and he had to give an answer other than "toss-up", and the DeNiro mention just seems like him throwing another name out there, so they don't just spend the entire article only talking about DDL and Denzel I could also make the argument that when he says "Daniel Day-Lewis’ retirement announcement begs the question: who takes over as Greatest Living Actor?" at the start, he seems to imply that, at the moment, it's DDL that holds that title (maybe as a holdover from that Time declaration), and that the 2016 Oscar race would decide if Washington could dethrone him before the retirement took effect. Although as you say, it didn't really do much for that, because Oldman (sigh) won. And honestly, I don't think that race affected their status one bit. I do wonder, though, how it would've gone if Phantom Thread had come out a year earlier (or if Denzel's projects had swapped years) so that you have Day-Lewis's swan song tango against Washington at (in my opinion) his peak. That would've been a challenge for the ages. Haha. That's one way of looking at it. I think Fleming's announcement is just an acknowledgement of that post-Time declaration though (otherwise they have no article). His statement that the two can't be separated if you ask him who holds the title, seems to be his actual view. I do think think the race affected and maybe enhanced Denzel's stature in one particular way. The manner in which he got nominated for Roman J Israel Esq, a film critics basically thought they'd buried at TIFF, took a lot of people (especially in the media) by surprise. Then it became his most disappointing film at the box office in years, in part because of that critical burial. Some of them still didn't fully grasp that as long as he had the performance, he didn't need the critics stamp of approval for his movie. I saw a lot of people referring to Denzel as the "male Meryl" after that nod happened, because it was as clear a demonstration of standing and stature within the industry and among his peers as they'd ever seen. You can give the greatest performance ever seen, but if critics don"t like your movie and it does no business at the box office, you are usually considered DOA as far as the Oscars. Critics were not trying to make Denzel happen.So Denzel reinforced his power in a big way.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 19, 2019 4:31:28 GMT
Haha. That's one way of looking at it. I think Fleming's announcement is just an acknowledgement of that post-Time declaration though (otherwise they have no article). His statement that the two can't be separated if you ask him who holds the title, seems to be his actual view. I do think think the race affected and maybe enhanced Denzel's stature in one particular way. The manner in which he got nominated for Roman J Israel Esq, a film critics basically thought they'd buried at TIFF, took a lot of people (especially in the media) by surprise. Then it became his most disappointing film at the box office in years, in part because of that critical burial. Some of them still didn't fully grasp that as long as he had the performance, he didn't need the critics stamp of approval for his movie. I saw a lot of people referring to Denzel as the "male Meryl" after that nod happened, because it was as clear demonstration of standing and stature within the industry and among his peers as they'd ever seen. That's a fair assessment. I will say, however, that he benefitted greatly from Franco getting poleaxed by that controversy at the prime time, even though I think that Franco's performance was far more alienating to the Academy than most seemed to think . . . but he still was a Globe winner who had gotten in everywhere up until BAFTA. It felt more like Washington took that spot as a combination of Fences afterglow (I really do think he came within an inch of snatching that Oscar at the last second; I wonder if a couple more weeks might've done the trick) and a general lack of other options, particularly as The Post vastly underperformed, Carell wound up running in supporting for Battle of the Sexes (and still missing) and none of the other contenders could get much in the way of traction. The Streep comparison is probably a valid one, and I wouldn't be surprised if he continues to be something of a default pick whenever he's got something remotely baity, regardless of the film's quality.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 19, 2019 4:49:39 GMT
I think the Franco thing was a smokescreen. I think most of the voting was done by the time his story even hit. Denzel being Rain Man in a serious drama trumps Franco being a somewhat one-note comedy weirdo in a slight comedic biopic. Disaster Artist wasn't anywhere as strong with the Academy as expected anyway (only scoring Adapted Screenplay nod), so Franco's strength in the race had always been overestimated. Also, the Globe actor winner for comedy/musical has traditionally missed an Oscar nomination many times, so you can't overstate that. It's usually the Drama globe winner that's always considered a lock for an Oscar nod.
I think saying his nomination was because Franco was naughty or their were no other options is a bit shortsighted (really? Not even Jake Gyllenhaal in Stronger, one of the baitiest roles of the year).
Denzel has never missed with the Globe/SAG combo. He was getting nominated regardless of the competition. I think Franco misses even without his late snafu. There were other options, just like there are always options when Streep is around. His peers in the Academy just wanted to vote for Denzel it seems, and judged his performance, not his movie's reception.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 19, 2019 5:00:14 GMT
Eh, I think Stronger was always a pipe-dream. For whatever reason, Gyllenhaal doesn't seem to command the respect of the Academy as you'd expect. There's no reason he should've missed for Nightcrawler, after all. I think after all the times he should've gotten in and didn't, you have to assume that for whatever reason, they just don't like him. That, or he has the shittiest luck.
Perhaps Washington was more secure, given he got the Globe and SAG nod, but remember that Day-Lewis missed the SAG deadline, so someone obviously had to fill that space. Washington was a more palatable choice in terms of character, but Franco had the stronger film (critically speaking) and actually did coup some prizes along the way. Yeah, it's a bizarre role but he did have the traction. A few votes could've made all the difference there. And I think that in recent years, the Comedy Globe has evinced more strength than it historically has. People dismissed Olivia Colman's Globe win in the face of what they assumed would be an imminent Close coronation and, well, lol.
There really weren't a whole lot of options by the end of the 2017 Best Actor race. Hanks had flagged, Gyllenhaal was a non-starter, Jackman was in a critically drubbed musical misfire (with its own controversy), Bell was never happening even with the BAFTA nod, etc., etc. But Washington has a built-in fanbase (as does Streep), he had a lot of afterglow support from the previous year, and the Franco talk was a bit buzzy even before the story truly hit (people were mentioning it obliquely as the season started, as #metoo was really ramping up), so Washington made sense as a perceived alternate, and as you say, he's reached the point where if he's in contention for anything remotely on Oscar's radar, you have to consider him at least as a possibility. You don't hit eight Oscar nominations and not carry some sort of weight.
|
|