|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 23, 2018 0:43:27 GMT
I don't think anyone seriously buys DDL is retired. He's said this before and come back, and the man can be a bit precious at times. The reality is, he'll still be sent scripts and overtures by top filmmakers hoping to "lure" him out of retirement (particularly ones he close to already, like Spielberg and PTA. It's how Scorsese got him back from his first shoe cobbling retirement for Gangs Of New York). It'll just take one really great role or script for DDL to say he couldn't resist the drive to play this role, and Team DDL will go into overdrive for Oscar number 4, because "he's back!"
It may take 5 or 6 years or more, but he'll be back (and he's used to waiting it out years at a time to build anticipation for his next move, so "retirement" for him feels like his normal work schedule). Especially if he is no longer being talked of as much, and he feels people need a reminder of who he is and what he's done.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 23, 2018 0:51:01 GMT
I don't think anyone seriously buys DDL is retired. He's said this before and come back, and the man can be a bit precious at times. The reality is, he'll still be sent scripts and overtures by top filmmakers hoping to "lure" him out of retirement (particularly ones he close to already, like Spielberg and PTA. It's how Scorsese got him back from his first shoe cobbling retirement for Gangs Of New York). It'll just take one really great role or script for DDL to say he couldn't resist the drive to play this role, and Team DDL will go into overdrive for Oscar number 4, because "he's back!" It may take 5 or 6 years or more, but he'll be back. Especially if he is no longer being talked of as much, and he feels people need a reminder of who he is and what he's done. Well, to be fair, he never actively "retired" after The Boxer. He went on what I suppose you might call a sabbatical, but I don't recall him ever saying he was done with acting. He just . . . didn't act in that time period, and I guess he just refused offers until Scorsese and DiCaprio had to go to Italy to beg him to come back. I do think that we haven't seen the last of Day-Lewis (barring some illness/tragedy). I think that it's essentially the end of his leading career, though, if only because the man is sixty now and there is likely going to be a paucity of quality parts for his age that he can play. With that said, it seemed like Lincoln was going to be his final leading role (and on paper, it's the perfect swan song for Day-Lewis), but then PTA decided to throw a wrench into that plan. I think if PTA wants him, PTA will get him.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 23, 2018 1:12:20 GMT
I don't think anyone seriously buys DDL is retired. He's said this before and come back, and the man can be a bit precious at times. The reality is, he'll still be sent scripts and overtures by top filmmakers hoping to "lure" him out of retirement (particularly ones he close to already, like Spielberg and PTA. It's how Scorsese got him back from his first shoe cobbling retirement for Gangs Of New York). It'll just take one really great role or script for DDL to say he couldn't resist the drive to play this role, and Team DDL will go into overdrive for Oscar number 4, because "he's back!" It may take 5 or 6 years or more, but he'll be back. Especially if he is no longer being talked of as much, and he feels people need a reminder of who he is and what he's done. Well, to be fair, he never actively "retired" after The Boxer. He went on what I suppose you might call a sabbatical, but I don't recall him ever saying he was done with acting. He just . . . didn't act in that time period, and I guess he just refused offers until Scorsese and DiCaprio had to go to Italy to beg him to come back. I do think that we haven't seen the last of Day-Lewis (barring some illness/tragedy). I think that it's essentially the end of his leading career, though, if only because the man is sixty now and there is likely going to be a paucity of quality parts for his age that he can play. With that said, it seemed like Lincoln was going to be his final leading role (and on paper, it's the perfect swan song for Day-Lewis), but then PTA decided to throw a wrench into that plan. I think if PTA wants him, PTA will get him. I completely disagree that it's the end of his leading career. He's only 60 years old. They still write plenty of Oscarbaity leading roles for (white male) actors between the ages of 60-70. and he's got several years to simply wait for ONE good one to pass his desk (and there are plenty of "great Old man" biopics" still to be made. Hell, Tom Hanks is older than DDL, and he's cranking out these old guy oscarbait biopics at a yearly pace, and they won't stop making them) to make his return. Yes, those roles are not as plentiful as they might be between the ages of 30-50, but the notion that DDL won't be offered an age appropriate Oscar calibre leading role in the next decade almost feels absurd to me. He'll be approached for several.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 23, 2018 1:18:20 GMT
Well, to be fair, he never actively "retired" after The Boxer. He went on what I suppose you might call a sabbatical, but I don't recall him ever saying he was done with acting. He just . . . didn't act in that time period, and I guess he just refused offers until Scorsese and DiCaprio had to go to Italy to beg him to come back. I do think that we haven't seen the last of Day-Lewis (barring some illness/tragedy). I think that it's essentially the end of his leading career, though, if only because the man is sixty now and there is likely going to be a paucity of quality parts for his age that he can play. With that said, it seemed like Lincoln was going to be his final leading role (and on paper, it's the perfect swan song for Day-Lewis), but then PTA decided to throw a wrench into that plan. I think if PTA wants him, PTA will get him. I completely disagree that it's the end of his leading career. He's only 60 years old. They still write plenty of Oscarbaity leading roles for (white male) actors between the ages of 60-70. and he's got several years to simply wait for ONE good one to pass his desk (and there are plenty of "great Old man" biopics" still to be made. Hell, Tom Hanks is older than DDL, and he's cranking out these old guy oscarbait biopics at a yearly pace, and they won't stop making them) to make his return. Yes, those roles are not as plentiful as they might be between the ages of 30-50, but the notion that DDL won't be offered an age appropriate Oscar calibre leading role in the next decade almost feels absurd to me. He'll be approached for several. It's possible, but the question is what roles will get his attention. He turned down Lincoln half a dozen times, after all, so the baitiness of the role isn't something he's concerned with, but rather the quality.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Apr 23, 2018 22:08:34 GMT
I also disagree with that it's the end of his leading career. Do you guys really believe Daniel fucking Day-Lewis would accept a supporting part after dramatically anouncing his retirement? Do you really believe any director would consider him for a supporting part? DDL reached a level on his career in which it'd only be acceptable for him to be the main actor in a very good movie. No, we'll never see him taking a minor part. I don't think so.
Also, I don't think a stage career is so important to cement one's reputation as a legendary actor. It might mean a lot to film buffs like us, but it's not just the cinephiles who define who's going to be remembered as a great actor. One of the main reasons why Pacino and Washington became who they are is because everyone knows them and that they're great, and that's because they've seen Pacino and Washington in tons of great pictures. The regular Joe, someone who just likes cinema might not even know DDL, Cranston, Pacino and etc do stage acting. Heck, I only found out Gyllenhaal and Cranston were/are doing theater very recently. Films are acessible to everyone, thus making film actors more known among people, whilst theater is for a handful of people who happen to be in New York to attend to Broadway plays.
The real reason why Hopkins, Fiennes, Oldman and others cited above didn't become legends like Pacino, Washington and DDL isn't because they didn't do stage. Acting on the stage definetly helps you become better at the craft of acting, but it's not something that catapults people into levels of fame. Matthew Broderick has two Tonys and no one thinks he's one of the greatest american actors (not saying people think he's bad, just that he's not linked as one of the greatest). Hopkins, Oldman and Fiennes are second-field prestige actors 'cause their filmography just isn't much interesting, they haven't been in that many classics and they spend a lot of their times doing things that are below their talents. Hopkins is the one of this bunch who's more cited in those conversations, and it's not coincidence that he's the one who was in Silence of the Lambs.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 23, 2018 22:10:21 GMT
Well, to be fair, he never actively "retired" after The Boxer. He went on what I suppose you might call a sabbatical, but I don't recall him ever saying he was done with acting. He just . . . didn't act in that time period, and I guess he just refused offers until Scorsese and DiCaprio had to go to Italy to beg him to come back. I do think that we haven't seen the last of Day-Lewis (barring some illness/tragedy). I think that it's essentially the end of his leading career, though, if only because the man is sixty now and there is likely going to be a paucity of quality parts for his age that he can play. With that said, it seemed like Lincoln was going to be his final leading role (and on paper, it's the perfect swan song for Day-Lewis), but then PTA decided to throw a wrench into that plan. I think if PTA wants him, PTA will get him. I completely disagree that it's the end of his leading career. He's only 60 years old. They still write plenty of Oscarbaity leading roles for (white male) actors between the ages of 60-70. and he's got several years to simply wait for ONE good one to pass his desk (and there are plenty of "great Old man" biopics" still to be made. Hell, Tom Hanks is older than DDL, and he's cranking out these old guy oscarbait biopics at a yearly pace, and they won't stop making them) to make his return. Yes, those roles are not as plentiful as they might be between the ages of 30-50, but the notion that DDL won't be offered an age appropriate Oscar calibre leading role in the next decade almost feels absurd to me. He'll be approached for several. Just sayin' here, Tom Hanks hasn't been nodded in almost 20 years since he was in his 40s. Washington has his last two in his 60s - one underserved imo but even if we disagree on that the other is a role he initiated. Now you did say "white male" so........the other actors older than 60 who've shown up in the Lead category are Keaton, Oldman, Dern and Cranston. No one could have been Lucky except HDS really...............it's really very thin the deeper you go into your 60s. Now I do know what you and stephen are saying - and I agree that DDL is a historic figure and I know he'd get baity offers written specifically for him and he could initiate one like Washington did but all the guys in their 60s are going to decline in American film and let's not exaggerate the depth of the quality of male roles over 60 - it's basically maybe one or two AT MOST special ones a year. Like here's a question for everyone - what lead roles in the last 10-15 years would you have like to have seen DeNiro, Pacino, Hoffman do? Maybe it will change and be like men's tennis where you never had anyone win a slam after 30 and then...........well, Federer etc. but I wouldn't count on it........
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 23, 2018 23:50:03 GMT
Hanks not being nominated has exactly ZERO to do with the quality of his roles. It's HIM. He's out of favor. Enough of the Academy I believe regard him to be a very respectable, but vanilla actor who almost always plays it safe in his approach, to always hurt him at nomination time. Is that fully fair? Dunno. But that's the perception that surrounds him. It's no coincidence that his movies constantly get nominated for Best Picture, and his co-stars constantly get nominated, but he misses out. An actor the Academy respected, but also regarded as more of a risk taker might have scored nods in several Hanks roles over the last 20 years. As an example, I believe if it was Russell Crowe in The Road To Perdition, he'd have scored the nod. Viggo Mortensen might have got the nod for Sully. The roles are pure bait . They just can't get excited over what Hanks is doing with them. When the Academy thinks they've seen most facets of what you can offer as a performer, then nominations can become incredibly hard to come by for those who were once favorites. It's affected not just Hanks, but Pacino, Hoffman, DeNiro (he managed to coattail his way to a late career nomination in Silver Linings Playbook during the brief period where the Academy nominated anything David O Russell did).
Washington takes big risks and shows new sides to himself when he gets a juicy enough role to do it, so he's never written off by the Academy as someone who they've seen every facet. Roman J Israel Esq being a case in point. It's a performance and charactrerisation never seen before by Washington, and he's been around for donkeys years. He's still showing brand new weapons in his armoury at an age when most actors have exhausted their repertoire. Washington still has the element of surprise. And obviously, DDL makes a point of showing new facets to himself each time he decide to show up, so the Academy don't get bored of him either.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 23, 2018 23:59:02 GMT
I believe if it was Russell Crowe in The Road To Perdition Post-phonegate? Not a chance. If the BAFTA/phone incidents hadn't happened, I would wager Crowe would've gotten in for Master and Commander and maybe even Cinderella Man.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Apr 24, 2018 3:12:28 GMT
How about Denzel vs Penn vs Cage....
Personally I think Denzel isn't yet the best American actor of his generation. So for me he has that hurdle before sizing up the likes of DDL etc. They haven't been mentioned yet in this thread but there's still Penn and Cage, who I rank higher. Thing is those two are in distinctive funks right now (and neither are 60 yet) and then there's Denz who' sort of seems like he's just firing up for the next stage of his career.
Penn is really hurting lately - The Gunman (which he also wrote and produced) The Last Face and his new book were all srsly trashed. Professor & Madman gives him a juicy role but that movie is in legal trouble. The First (Hulu) series could be something, a leading TV role from Beau Willimon and Agnieszka Holland directing. And there's the American Lion HBO project that if it happens could be special. We'll see. Cage just changed his agency so hopefully he finds better projects - he's too easily shrugged off or boxed in as a joke but if you look thru the garbage recently he's given remarkable performances in Joe and Army of One (a performance with such outsized comic zeal it's insane he pulls it off).....
It's much easier to picture Denzel totally switching off those Fuqua vehicles, the action roles, and taking on heavier prestige stuff. Just the talk of him wanting to do Lear, it feels like he's gearing into his late career with awareness and appetite.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 24, 2018 3:19:07 GMT
For a more apt trio to compare, how about Denzel vs Penn vs Cage.... Personally I think Denzel isn't yet the best American actor of his generation. So for me he has that hurdle before sizing up the likes of DDL. They haven't been mentioned yet in this thread but there's still Penn and Cage, who I rank higher. Thing is those two are in distinctive funks right now (and neither are 60 yet) and then there's Denz who' sort of seems like he's just firing up for the next stage of his career. Penn is really hurting lately - The Gunman (which he also wrote and produced) The Last Face and his new book were all srsly trashed. Professor & Madman gives him a juicy role but that movie is in legal trouble. The First (Hulu) series could be something, a leading TV role from Beau Willimon and Agnieszka Holland directing. And there's the American Lion HBO project that if it happens could be special. We'll see. Cage just changed his agency so hopefully he finds better projects - he's too easily shrugged off or boxed in as a joke but if you look thru the garbage recently he's given remarkable performances in Joe and Army of One (a performance with such outsized comic zeal it's insane he pulls it off)..... It's much easier to picture totally switching off those Fuqua vehicles, the action roles, and taking on heavier prestige stuff. Just the talk of him wanting to do Lear, it feels like he's gearing into his later career with awareness and appetite. I can't really reconcile comparing Penn and Cage with Washington, if only because Washington feels more of a contemporary to Day-Lewis (just by age and general career parallels), whereas Penn/Cage are more contemporaries of guys like Mickey Rourke, Matt Dillon and Eric Roberts. Obviously, the former are more acclaimed and successful (yes, even Cage). Washington didn't feel like he was born out of that "'80s club", even if he is within the age group (albeit slightly older). I don't favor Denzel the way scrud does, but he feels like a different class of actor to the '80s gang . . . but then, I'd argue Cage is his own beast as well. You know who I do want to see discussed as a contemporary to Washington/Day-Lewis, though? Mel Gibson. I think he is vastly underrated as an actor, and I think that personal troubles aside, he is always so bloody committed and he's never lost his edge. I think there's an interesting discussion to be had in regards to those three as peers, because grouping Pacino in with DDL/Denzel has always felt weird because he's got a twenty-year lead on them and it's hard for me to really compare him to them.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Apr 24, 2018 3:45:51 GMT
You know who I do want to see discussed as a contemporary to Washington/Day-Lewis, though? Mel Gibson. I think he is vastly underrated as an actor, and I think that personal troubles aside, he is always so bloody committed and he's never lost his edge. I think there's an interesting discussion to be had in regards to those three as peers, because grouping Pacino in with DDL/Denzel has always felt weird because he's got a twenty-year lead on them and it's hard for me to really compare him to them. In some ways Denzel and Mel are quite similar, like their manner of charm, but they differ in plenty of ways too. Funny, just looking thru imdb, if you take away Denzel's Oscar nom'd work and his Spike stuff, most of his movies from the '90s and on, you can kinda picture Mel in the roles. Not everything, but a lot. Still, Denz's number of good/great perfs go deeper and his top three or so Mel couldn't touch with a vaulting pole. But I agree that Mel is underrated and we probably haven't and maybe won't ever see the extent of his talent. I particularly like him in Gallipoli, it's a star performance where he really jumps off the screen. Also quite good in and I saw recently Mrs Soffel.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 24, 2018 6:09:57 GMT
How about Denzel vs Penn vs Cage.... Personally I think Denzel isn't yet the best American actor of his generation. So for me he has that hurdle before sizing up the likes of DDL etc. They haven't been mentioned yet in this thread but there's still Penn and Cage, who I rank higher. Thing is those two are in distinctive funks right now (and neither are 60 yet) and then there's Denz who' sort of seems like he's just firing up for the next stage of his career. Penn is really hurting lately - The Gunman (which he also wrote and produced) The Last Face and his new book were all srsly trashed. Professor & Madman gives him a juicy role but that movie is in legal trouble. The First (Hulu) series could be something, a leading TV role from Beau Willimon and Agnieszka Holland directing. And there's the American Lion HBO project that if it happens could be special. We'll see. Cage just changed his agency so hopefully he finds better projects - he's too easily shrugged off or boxed in as a joke but if you look thru the garbage recently he's given remarkable performances in Joe and Army of One (a performance with such outsized comic zeal it's insane he pulls it off)..... It's much easier to picture Denzel totally switching off those Fuqua vehicles, the action roles, and taking on heavier prestige stuff. Just the talk of him wanting to do Lear, it feels like he's gearing into his late career with awareness and appetite. Anyone is free to have a personal preference. Someone might think Rod Steiger is greater than Marlon Brando, but Steiger's achievememts and standing don't come close to Brando's, so it's sort of a moot point based mostly on personal preference, not reality. Washington is Brando in this modern scenario, and Cage and Penn are fighting it out to be Steiger (though Cage may even be considered less than that, and I don't really think he's even in the conversation, despite him being talented). In practical terms, neither Cage nor Penn can come close to Washington's actual acheivements and his stature. Penn was arguably close stature-wise on film at one point, but Washington has left him in the dust in the last 10 years. It's sort of embarrassing how wide the chasm is at this point. Washington's stage career alone could feasibly be considered to be greater than either of their film careers. And those guys only really have film careers (Penn has done some stage to mostly minor effect. Cage is just a talented, but hugely inconsistent movie actor and never treaded the boards). Washington being widely regarded as the singular American actor of his generation isn't even much of a debate anymore. It's whether he's taken a march on the crown for the greatest living American actor (regardless of generation), or the the greatest living actor (regardless of nationality). Fans of other actors often don't like when I use Washington's stage career to pull rank (and frankly, it even gives him a significant edge over DDL), but it matters massively (it's also interesting how few people have issue with constantly referring to the brilliant stage careers of people like Mark Rylance or Vanessa Redgrave or Ian McKellen or anyone British as another mark of their overall greatness, but with Washington, it's suddenly "no fair" to bring up all-time level stage chops against movie stars of his generation who simply don't have it. Like Denzel is almost "cheating" by being a brilliant stage actor as well.LOL!). Without their galvanizing work on the Broadway stage, Marlon Brando and Montgomery Clift are just two very good, attractive movie stars who might still have been acclaimed, but not been seen as the pinnacle of American acting for their generation, who could go toe to toe with the classically British trained actors in any medium. They both instantly got vaulted to the top of the tree for their generation IN America because of what they achieved on stage, and both backed it up on film. In the 60's and 70's, George C Scott was considered equal to Brando, based on what he did on film and stage. James Mason was brilliant on film (my personal preference over Laurence Olivier as a film actor), but he could never come close to Olivier's stature because he couldn't compete with Olivier's stage career AND film stature. One of the few things over the years that prevented me from dropping Al Pacino of my all-time top 5 greatest American actors list, are his huge stage achievements. Even when his film career went south, that stage rep still gave him the edge over his contemporaries in my estimation. And while Academy Award nominations aren't everything, Washington's 8 nominations to Penn's 5 to Cage's 2 nominations shows the chasm in film careers between Washington and any of the Americans from his era is pretty wide. He dominates all of them on Film and Stage in stature and accomplishments. It's like comparing Michael Phelps in swimming to whatever dudes finish 2nd or 3rd in his races. It's almost not a fair comparison to them anymore, as they are not on the same playing field. And as much as I think Cage can be fun to watch at times, he's at best a cult item. He's no more going to ever be seriously considered the best American actor of his generation, than Bela Lugosi or Vincent Price would be considered the best actors of their generation, despite being highly entertaining and talented. They are interesting screen presences, but let's not oversell it. I think Hanks is actually now 2nd to Washington in that American generation of actors (and he's a pretty distant second as well). But even Hanks is doing things like stage now to try and enhance his reputation, I think in part because I feel because there is a bit of a competitive streak in him that he plays down, and he's seen how much Washington has managed to almost lap the field in his generation of American actors on both film and stage.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 24, 2018 6:26:05 GMT
I believe if it was Russell Crowe in The Road To Perdition Post-phonegate? Not a chance. If the BAFTA/phone incidents hadn't happened, I would wager Crowe would've gotten in for Master and Commander and maybe even Cinderella Man. You got a point. It'd have to be before phone-gate from him to get nodded.
|
|
no
Badass
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 423
|
Post by no on Apr 24, 2018 6:42:24 GMT
lol why are people even arguing Daniel Day-Lewis is in the same league as Al Pacino?
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Apr 24, 2018 7:07:12 GMT
Anyone is free to have a personal preference. Someone might think Rod Steiger is greater than Marlon Brando, but Steiger's achievememts and standing don't come close to Brando's, so it's sort of a moot point based mostly on personal preference, not reality. Washington is Brando in this modern scenario, and Cage and Penn are fighting it out to be Steiger (though Cage may even be considered less than that, and I don't really think he's even in the conversation, despite him being talented). In practical terms, neither Cage nor Penn can come close to Washington's actual acheivements and his stature. Penn was arguably close stature-wise on film at one point, but Washington has left him in the dust in the last 10 years. It's sort of embarrassing how wide the chasm is at this point. Washington's stage career alone could feasibly be considered to be greater than either of their film careers. And those guys only really have film careers (Penn has done some stage to mostly minor effect. Cage is just a talented, but hugely inconsistent movie actor and never treaded the boards). Washington being widely regarded as the singular American actor of his generation isn't even much of a debate anymore. It's whether he's taken a march on the crown for the greatest living American actor (regardless of generation), or the the greatest living actor (regardless of nationality). Fans of other actors often don't like when I use Washington's stage career to pull rank (and frankly, it even gives him a significant edge over DDL), but it matters massively (it's also interesting how few people have issue with constantly referring to the brilliant stage careers of people like Mark Rylance or Vanessa Redgrave or Ian McKellen or anyone British as another mark of their overall greatness, but with Washington, it's suddenly "no fair" to bring up all-time level stage chops against movie stars of his generation who simply don't have it. Like Denzel is almost "cheating" by being a brilliant stage actor as well.LOL!). Without their galvanizing work on the Broadway stage, Marlon Brando and Montgomery Clift are just two very good, attractive movie stars who might still have been acclaimed, but not been seen as the pinnacle of American acting for their generation, who could go toe to toe with the classically British trained actors in any medium. They both instantly got vaulted to the top of the tree for their generation IN America because of what they achieved on stage, and both backed it up on film. And while Academy Award nominations aren't everything, Washington's 8 nominations to Penn's 5 to Cage's 2 nominations shows the chasm in film careers between Washington and any of the Americans from his era is pretty wide. He dominates all of them on Film and Stage in stature and accomplishments. It's like comparing Michael Phelps in swimming to whatever dudes finish 2nd or 3rd in his races. It's almost not a fair comparison to them anymore, as they are not on the same playing field. And as much as I think Cage can be fun to watch at times, he's at best a cult item. He's no more going to ever be seriously considered the best American actor of his generation, than Bela Lugosi or Vincent Price would be considered the best actors of their generation, despite being highly entertaining and talented. They are interesting screen presences, but let's not oversell it. Well we’re placing emphasis on different areas so this might turn out wonky. If Denzel’s stage work and Oscar noms play an important role in your love for him, that’s fine. Theater and acclaim are elements of “stature” I guess and if that’s what you wanna rank then yeah Denz is fairly ahead of Penn and Cage. But that to me is sort of a different discussion. For one we can't meter anyone’s talent by awards--it's a false and barely boring argument to have bc we can all count! Is Hitchcock a lesser director bc he never won an Oscar? Is Ang Lee twice as good as him? Awards, public and peer esteem, it's nice, but really...."luxury is the wolf at the door" as the man said. Idc how many memes of Cage they make, right? The noteworthy work isn't made lesser bc of his stature. He’s insanely talented (literally) and to me has a lot of performances—more than Denz—that I love. Personal preference, you said? There's room for theater talk too tho, of course. I just saw Denz in Iceman Cometh where he was great and seemed energized, and that played into my first post about his future, the next level, looking like it could be special.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 24, 2018 7:32:05 GMT
Anyone is free to have a personal preference. Someone might think Rod Steiger is greater than Marlon Brando, but Steiger's achievememts and standing don't come close to Brando's, so it's sort of a moot point based mostly on personal preference, not reality. Washington is Brando in this modern scenario, and Cage and Penn are fighting it out to be Steiger (though Cage may even be considered less than that, and I don't really think he's even in the conversation, despite him being talented). In practical terms, neither Cage nor Penn can come close to Washington's actual acheivements and his stature. Penn was arguably close stature-wise on film at one point, but Washington has left him in the dust in the last 10 years. It's sort of embarrassing how wide the chasm is at this point. Washington's stage career alone could feasibly be considered to be greater than either of their film careers. And those guys only really have film careers (Penn has done some stage to mostly minor effect. Cage is just a talented, but hugely inconsistent movie actor and never treaded the boards). Washington being widely regarded as the singular American actor of his generation isn't even much of a debate anymore. It's whether he's taken a march on the crown for the greatest living American actor (regardless of generation), or the the greatest living actor (regardless of nationality). Fans of other actors often don't like when I use Washington's stage career to pull rank (and frankly, it even gives him a significant edge over DDL), but it matters massively (it's also interesting how few people have issue with constantly referring to the brilliant stage careers of people like Mark Rylance or Vanessa Redgrave or Ian McKellen or anyone British as another mark of their overall greatness, but with Washington, it's suddenly "no fair" to bring up all-time level stage chops against movie stars of his generation who simply don't have it. Like Denzel is almost "cheating" by being a brilliant stage actor as well.LOL!). Without their galvanizing work on the Broadway stage, Marlon Brando and Montgomery Clift are just two very good, attractive movie stars who might still have been acclaimed, but not been seen as the pinnacle of American acting for their generation, who could go toe to toe with the classically British trained actors in any medium. They both instantly got vaulted to the top of the tree for their generation IN America because of what they achieved on stage, and both backed it up on film. And while Academy Award nominations aren't everything, Washington's 8 nominations to Penn's 5 to Cage's 2 nominations shows the chasm in film careers between Washington and any of the Americans from his era is pretty wide. He dominates all of them on Film and Stage in stature and accomplishments. It's like comparing Michael Phelps in swimming to whatever dudes finish 2nd or 3rd in his races. It's almost not a fair comparison to them anymore, as they are not on the same playing field. And as much as I think Cage can be fun to watch at times, he's at best a cult item. He's no more going to ever be seriously considered the best American actor of his generation, than Bela Lugosi or Vincent Price would be considered the best actors of their generation, despite being highly entertaining and talented. They are interesting screen presences, but let's not oversell it. Well we’re placing emphasis on different areas so this might turn out wonky. If Denzel’s stage work and Oscar noms play an important role in your love for him, that’s fine. Theater and acclaim are elements of “stature” I guess and if that’s what you wanna rank then yeah Denz is fairly ahead of Penn and Cage. But that to me is sort of a different discussion. For one we can't meter anyone’s talent by awards--it's a false and barely boring argument to have bc we can all count! Is Hitchcock a lesser director bc he never won an Oscar? Is Ang Lee twice as good as him? Awards, public and peer esteem, it's nice, but really...."luxury is the wolf at the door" as the man said. Idc how many memes of Cage they make, right? The noteworthy work isn't made lesser bc of his stature. He’s insanely talented (literally) and to me has a lot of performances—more than Denz—that I love. Personal preference, you said? There's room for theater talk too tho, of course. I just saw Denz in Iceman Cometh where he was great and seemed energized, and that played into my first post about his future, the next level, looking like it could be special. You make some reasonable points, but ultimately where does it all end if we just go purely on the personal preference route? When we are talking about "best actor of their generation", stature, peer respect, acclaim and all these factors have to be an intrinsic part of the discussion, or it just becomes some ridiculous free-for-all discussion, where anyone can pick their personal favorite movie star out of a hat and say, "that's the best actor of his generation, because I like more of his performances than anyone else and that's all that matters" and you just go round in circles arguing over people who aren't really in the conversation if we are being honest. So Bruce Willis can be the best actor of his generation. Or Kevin Costner can be the best actor of his generation. Or Sylvester Stallone can the best actor of his generation. I'm sure these guys may be the best actors of their respective generations to someone, but I'm not sure I want to spend much time discussing that, when I don't believe they are serious factors in the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 24, 2018 11:29:31 GMT
To me "best actor of their generation" is quite distinct to me from "best living actor" and to me best British Actor of his generation" is quite distinct from "best American actor of his generation" which can be completely distinct from just best "film" actor vs. best "overall" actor (with theater included).
Love the "luxury is the wolf at the door" quote ......and it's very true. If you want to see it, go younger and compare the American actors in their 40s who I assume more people would rank 1 and 2 - DiCaprio/Phoenix. Same age, same country, but nowhere near comparable industry or public stature - yes Phoenix has other things but that's really the difference.........what you are comparing there is explicitly talent level vs. awards/success. Or compare Gosling to Gyllenhaal etc. same thing.
Personal preference comes into it more as the actors get older because you've had a deeper rapport with the actor and their achievements are more crystallized/defined......
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 27, 2018 21:31:22 GMT
A friend sent me this today so I thought I'd share it. I had never seen it which is a little weird because I kind of love the Onion..............
|
|