|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jul 3, 2018 17:23:32 GMT
Dareisay, I find him to be one of the most enjoyable actors of the late 80s and the whole of 90s. I know I'm not very popular with this opinion - and leaving aside discussion about his hot wife - there's not a whole lot most people want to talk about regarding him. His wife certainly is the shit lookswise.
At the very least, I'd take him over Mel Gibson or Kevin Costner - the vanilla duo... who were doing popular stuff around the same time he was.
I think he showed signs of badassness in Wall Street, Black Rain, and The Perfect Murder.... though not sure I'd quite nominate him.... but certainly Wonders Boys and King of California.... underrated comedic roles he has.
And his best performance, and signature role in Falling Down is worthy of an Oscar win. Most people here take Liam Neeson and Daniel Day-Lewis in that year, but I think Douglas kicks them both down.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 3, 2018 17:32:57 GMT
I sometimes make out like I hate him but the truth is I find him fine but very very limited - I think he can do comedy-drama really well and those are actually his best work - Behind the Candelabra (people forget how he uses humor there, performance of his life), Wonder Boys, Solitary Man, War of the Roses. But I think he's awfully funny when trying to do straight drama.........he's a complete sort of constipated bore at straight drama. I don't much like Falling Down but I'll say he had his moments there somewhat. Some people really overrate him (his father somewhat too actually imo - he had a good 50s, that doesn't make him Brando ) so I guess sometimes I tend to take it out on him unfairly.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 3, 2018 17:41:13 GMT
Great, somewhat underrated actor. I mean he's got an oscar for acting (but only 1 nomination for acting, which is just plain wrong) and won a mini-series/movie Best Actor Emmy in one of the few years that category was seriously competitive.
I think it was his slight misfortune to reach his peak as an actor relatively late. He was around in the 1970's, but sort of a journeyman actor at that point (I believe he was mostly acting in the cop show The Streets Of San Francisco). He really got kicking in the mid-80's, and I agree he was an incredibly enjoyable (not to mention nuanced) actor at his peak. Douglas never had that longer stretch of great roles that contemporaries like Nicholson or even Jeff Bridges did.
But yeah, you couldn't really go wrong with Michael Douglas from the mid 80's up till the early 2000's, when he began to age out of top leading roles. Loved his trilogy of films with Kathleen Turner, and his trashy but hugely enjoyable "erotic thrillers". And he probably should have at least 3-4 more acting nominations as an actor (including Falling Down and Wonder Boys).
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Jul 3, 2018 17:45:35 GMT
He's pretty decent actually. He might not have the range of some of his peers, but he has a presence and likability onscreen that a lot of those same peers don't have.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 3, 2018 18:05:17 GMT
(his father somewhat too actually imo - he had a good 50s, that doesn't make him Brando ) Kirk Douglas had a 20 year stretch that was straight up better than Brando in the 50's/60's, imho. Douglas's run from 1946 to around 1964 was to me almost untouchable in American film for that period. He more or less created the template for the modern noir villain in Out Of The Past and did Raging Bull before DeNiro in Champion. And this was before he even got into the 50's. It's ridiculous what Douglas managed in that period. Ace In The Hole, Paths Of Glory, Spartacus, playing Van Gogh etc etc. Brando trumped Douglas by being resurrected by some of the best filmmakers in the golden era of American filmmaking (the 70's), therefore ensuring his countinued mythologisation. Douglas floundered going into the 70's and beyond (like Robert DeNiro in the 21st century), and it affected his legacy somewhat. But had Coppola not forced the studio to put Brando in The Godfather, I think his overall legacy and stature would be a lot closer to Douglas. Same goes for Montgomery Clift. He never lived to have a 70's resurgance, and today, he's not got the legacy of someone like Kirk Douglas (despite being a cult item actor with cinephiles). And Clift and Brando were considered on a par in the 50's.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jul 3, 2018 18:05:28 GMT
I sometimes make out like I hate him but the truth is I find him fine but very very limited - I think he can do comedy-drama really well and those are actually his best work - Behind the Candelabra (people forget how he uses humor there, performance of his life), Wonder Boys, Solitary Man, War of the Roses. But I think he's awfully funny when trying to do straight drama.........he's a complete sort of constipated bore at straight drama. I don't much like Falling Down but I'll say he had his moments there somewhat. Some people really overrate him (his father somewhat too actually imo - he had a good 50s, that doesn't make him Brando ) so I guess sometimes I tend to take it out on him unfairly. I agree he's not a dramatic actor. He's kinda like a Bogart. Though he has more a rough, biker look. But I think he's mostly the guy in a bunch of genre films who has some iconic lines and a douche persona - with a tiny bit of smartassness. And he's good at what he's good at - dramatically limited or not. I agree with you on Kirk Douglas though. I never knew why he was regarded so highly. To me, he's just the random dude with a Dane military haircut.... and that's like my least favorite haircut style imaginable. And other than Lust for Life and some other Shakespearean roles (he needed to take more of those... he was good at those), I see him as just the lead of a lot of studio vehicles but he wasn't exactly the thespian force. But Lust for Life is a Olivier/Brando-level work imo. Though I don't quite hate him like you do where it would trickle down to his son. Sad to hear you don't like Falling Down. Even though I consider it his best performance.... it's him doing comedy with a douchebag attitude again. And it's not the dramatic prowess you're necessarily looking for.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 3, 2018 18:06:21 GMT
Great, somewhat underrated actor. I mean he's got an oscar for acting (but only 1 nomination for acting, which is just plain wrong) and won a mini-series/movie Best Actor Emmy in one of the few years that category was seriously competitive. I think it was his slight misfortune to reach his peak as an actor relatively late. He was around in the 1970's, but sort of a journeyman actor at that point (I believe he was mostly acting in the cop show The Streets Of San Francisco). He really got kicking in the mid-80's, and I agree he was an incredibly enjoyable (not to mention nuanced) actor at his peak. Douglas never had that longer stretch of great roles that contemporaries like Nicholson or even Jeff Bridges did. But yeah, you couldn't really go wrong with Michael Douglas from the mid 80's up till the early 2000's, when he began to age out of top leading roles. Loved his trilogy of films with Kathleen Turner, and his trashy but hugely enjoyable "erotic thrillers". And he probably should have at least 3-4 more acting nominations as an actor (including Falling Down and Wonder Boys). I would also argue that Douglas had a bit of a tough row to hoe in getting out of his old man's shadow. Unlike Jeff Bridges, who was able to quickly shed the influence of his father, I'd say Douglas had a tough time being able to convince people to see him as anything more than Kirk's kid. The Streets of San Francisco was popular, but it was the Miami Vice of its time, and while people may love Don Johnson, no one was claiming he was one of the great actors of his era. His '80s run is pretty solid, but Gordon Gekko was such a game-changer for him because, as Douglas himself pointed out in his Oscar speech, no one thought he could play someone so amoral and complex. Up to that point, Douglas had basically played charming yet somewhat toothless leading men; you could interchange him with half a dozen other guys of the era (Costner, William Hurt) and you wouldn't really lose anything. He was dependable, but not necessarily wow-worthy. Then Gekko came along and changed his career. After that, he started pursuing more eclectic roles ( Falling Down being one of them), but by that point, he'd aged pretty well out of the choice roles that would've gone to guys of his age group (Nicholson chief among them) and the really good parts were in offbeat films ( Wonder Boys) or roles that he was sought after by previous collaborators ( Behind the Candelabra). I think Douglas is overall an underrated actor, and I'd argue he isn't quite as limited as Pacinoyes would say. I just don't think he's been able to really showcase the sort of range that an actor of his generation would've been able to; he rose in the prime era for the "intense method" that made Pacino/De Niro/Hoffman etc. such stars. But I think Douglas is the sort of actor who rarely, if ever, phones it in, and he turned in his career-best performance only a few years ago.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jul 3, 2018 19:05:07 GMT
(his father somewhat too actually imo - he had a good 50s, that doesn't make him Brando ) Kirk Douglas had a 20 year stretch that was straight up better than Brando in the 50's/60's, imho. Douglas's run from 1946 to around 1964 was to me almost untouchable in American film for that period. He more or less created the template for the modern noir villain in Out Of The Past and did Raging Bull before DeNiro in Champion. And this was before he even got into the 50's. It's ridiculous what Douglas managed in that period. Ace In The Hole, Paths Of Glory, Spartacus, playing Van Gogh etc etc. Brando trumped Douglas by being resurrected by some of the best filmmakers in the golden era of American filmmaking (the 70's), therefore ensuring his countinued mythologisation. Douglas floundered going into the 70's and beyond (like Robert DeNiro in the 21st century), and it affected his legacy somewhat. But had Coppola not forced the studio to put Brando in The Godfather, I think his overall legacy and stature would be a lot closer to Douglas. Same goes for Montgomery Clift. He never lived to have a 70's resurgance, and today, he's not got the legacy of someone like Kirk Douglas (despite being a cult item actor with cinephiles). And Clift and Brando were considered on a par in the 50's. Are you saying Clift was equal to Brando in the 50s? I don't think that's accurate at all. I think Brando was always thought of as a bigger deal even in the 50s. I think the expectation for Brando was mostly what was the differentiating factor and because he failed to deliver after On the Waterfront and into the 60s, there may have been a bit of a cool-off period, and I'd imagine he faced some criticism too. But the reason he was resurrected in the 70s is because his acclaim in the 50s was huge enough to where all the cinephiles (like Coppola, Bertolucci) absolutely had to direct him. They probably didn't see Douglas and Clift in the same way. I'm not a Brando fanboy or anything, but if anything... while his work in Coppola films popularized him a little bit more, it was Last Tango in Paris that's thought of the superior performance to anything he did in Coppola films - though I get the popularity factor of him in The Godfather. I think James Dean is more of a comparable equivalence of Brando, though maybe they're not from exactly the same school of acting. Also remember Paul Newman had a mediocre 70s, and came back in the 80s. So the 70s is not necessarily the make-or-break decade to where your career won't be able to survive if you didn't make proportional headway.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 3, 2018 19:17:14 GMT
Are you saying Clift was equal to Brando in the 50s? I don't think that's accurate at all. I think Brando was always thought of as a bigger deal even in the 50s. I think the expectation for Brando was mostly what was the differentiating factor and because he failed to deliver after On the Waterfront and into the 60s, there may have been a bit of a cool-off period, and I'd imagine he faced some criticism too. But the reason he was resurrected in the 70s is because his acclaim in the 50s was huge enough to where all the cinephiles (like Coppola, Bertolucci) absolutely had to direct him. They probably didn't see Douglas and Clift in the same way. I'm not a Brando fanboy or anything, but if anything... while his work in Coppola films popularized him a little bit more, it was Last Tango in Paris that's thought of the superior performance to anything he did in Coppola films - though I get the popularity factor of him in The Godfather. I think James Dean is more of a comparable equivalence of Brando, though maybe they're not from exactly the same school of acting. Also remember Paul Newman had a mediocre 70s, and came back in the 80s. So the 70s is not necessarily the make-or-break decade to where your career won't be able to survive if you didn't make proportional headway. Brando was much bigger in the pop-culture sense of the era, but in terms of the acting community and industry, Clift was seen as Brando's rival, his equal, and some (Brando included) would even say his better. Brando idolized Clift's talent, and the feeling seems to have been mutual. There were those who tried to stoke the fires of the rivalry at the time by adding salacious tales of jealousy and dislike, but Clift himself shot those down. One can certainly chart their careers in tandem, and when Clift's accident took him out of commission (which would wind up permanent a few years later), you see Brando hit the skids pretty hard around the same time. That's no coincidence. Brando was the sort of actor who needed to be galvanized, to be inspired, to be pushed by others to be better. Clift was the yardstick that he used to measure his own talent, and when that was gone, the passion seemed to go out from him. He'd become something of a joke in the 1960s, and it wasn't until Coppola/Bertolucci dredged him up again in the '70s that his renaissance returned. We'll never be able to know what the face of cinema would've been like if Monty (or James Dean, for that matter) had stuck around longer. Perhaps Brando's fallow years would've been spruced up. Perhaps Clift would've taken roles that Brando wound up with (imagine him in the Last Tango role, for instance). Hell, I've posited before a version of Blue Velvet with James Dean in the Hopper role, as something of a perverse twist on his Rebel Without a Cause label. We'll never know, and that is the great tragedy of it all. But in terms of judging their places within the pantheon, yes, Brando was bigger, but I don't think that means he was better. I've heard it stated (and I agree with the sentiment) that Brando and Dean were very centered actors, drawing energy from everyone around them and using it to fuel their own performances to great effect. Clift, however, was much more of a giver; he elevated everyone around him and made them better by virtue of his own presence.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jul 3, 2018 19:41:15 GMT
I like him. As others said, he doesn't have the widest range but what he does well, he does exceedingly well. I nod him for Wall Street, Wonder Boys, and Traffic.
Plus he produced The China Syndrome, which is underrated as all hell.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 3, 2018 20:02:14 GMT
I think Clift was the main Brando rival and Dean was sort of a synthesis of them both. Clift is a very misunderstood actor, even to this day, there is a thread called the "most poetic American actors" where he is constantly mentioned and he wasn't by any standard as poetic an actor as Brando - I'd really recommend looking at that thread because its funny how people see him. Part of Clift's greatness (and he was great) was to sort of create an aura within - and then build on to that little by little. It gave him a great warmth and sensitivity and identifiability.
As for the rivalry, Clift was also theater involved and Shakespeare involved in the early 50s when both were on the scene and thats where the rivalry stories come from. I think Brando was clearly a better actor than Clift and he grew in leaps and bounds quickly - where Clift was somewhat stunted, part of that may be due personal things he went through. But prior to Brando he was the man and after him, well he's still great.
Interesting story in comparing actors, I have a friend of mine who once said talking about Frank Langella that Frank Langella is a "better" actor than Robert DeNiro and I was stunned - I said "really - you think that?" and he said "DeNiro is the more famous actor, Langella is the better one"
Well I think generally in film that is harder to prove when you compare film work vs film work - Langella's argument would have to be in some other form or else how would you base a claim like that? But what's really hard to prove and I think a false argument is that Douglas or Clift would have even been attractive to Coppola or any of the 70s generation anyway - that they had a later career for the taking - it was always going to be Brando and only him - heck Lancaster was quite a bit better in the 60s than Douglas to me - Douglas was faltering in The Arrangement or The Brotherhood well prior and Clift while he was wonderful in his early 60s roles couldn't physically work much anyway as the decade went on.
It's no different the way that David O Russell wanted DeNiro or all these guys sort of write things for Pacino nowadays - it's because they were that good and the big difference was, not only was Brando that good...........he was still just 50 in the 70s, not 75 like DeNiro and Pacino are now.
Clift in comparison to Brando gets raised to a level that his work can't match up to - and that's a shame, because he really was great.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 3, 2018 20:37:59 GMT
Your argument is logical, and I agree. Brando is bigger. Bigger is not always better. And I'm not saying Brando being bigger made him better. I'm just saying I think Brando was regarded as a bit higher on the top food chain even in the 50s. There has always been a Clift vs. Brando comparison in the filmdom. Much like The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones. The Beatles are bigger (not necessarily better), and I know even today's generation minded listeners who can take in The Beatles but can't take in The Rolling Stones because they find them too old, and too dadish. The 60s weren't kind to Brando, but lots of actors mailed it in in that decade where in the 50s they were doing great work. The 60s was the death of the old Hollywood model, and it took a lot of actors down with it. Best example I can make is... Elizabeth Taylor, foremost celebrity of the 50s. Rose to the peak in the latter days of the 50s though, and expectations for her was huge into the 60s. But because of the dying old Hollywood model of the 60s, it didn't give her the roles she deserved. And she got Cleopatra, and very bland roles for 7 whole years she didn't do a whole lot of stuff. Virginia Woolf? resurrected her, but it was the New Hollywood movement about to surface. So yes, I agree with everything you've said. This sounds like Daniel Day-Lewis vs Gary Oldman. Before There Will Be Blood, I'm not sure who most people preferred. I think it was DDL, but not by THAT wide of a margin. Oldman had Leon - probably his most popular work with enduring power, but I don't think he had a whole lot of stuff that got more popular through the years. Similarly, I don't think anything DDL did had wide enough appeal to where it would reach all the bro-dude-teenagers. But DDL has There Will Be Blood now. And now has Lincoln - that film has more appeal to common young viewers than anything Oldman has except maybe Harry Potter and Leon. And probably has more appeal than anything DDL himself has before Gangs of New York. If you were to ask me personal preferences, it's a different story. But the main thing I'm trying to say is that I think the reason Brando was selected as Coppola's first and only choice for The Godfather probably has to do with the reputation he has already gained by that point... it was 1972 already but his works in the 50s were strong enough to endure 2 decades. And they were seen by Coppola (back then) and he.... loved them. I bet Altman loved them too, though I can't be sure of that. The Clift/Brando debate will always endure, partly because it is symbolic of film fandom/criticism in itself. Brando is mainstream, one of the first major fixtures that anyone getting into film will encounter. Clift isn't exactly esoteric or obscure, but his work (while still iconic in its own right) isn't exactly what a casual moviegoer might seek out, whereas The Godfather and Apocalypse Now and Superman kept Brando in the public eye even today. People who want to flash their "film cred" might opt for Clift just because he isn't the mainstream choice. But I think the debate endures even more because with Brando, we saw where he could go, whereas Clift never got to enjoy the fruits of middle-age, which is where a lot of the real plum parts of that era could've been reaped. Imagine Clift playing George to Elizabeth Taylor's Martha (the two of them were exceedingly close, and it's the sort of damaged role that Clift would've been well-suited). Or the Brando role in Last Tango. Hell, if Brando hadn't gone through his '70s renaissance, would he be as well-regarded today, or would he be more of a "thing of his own time" the way that Clift is? As for Coppola, well, how many older, great Italian-American actors were around at the time for him to select from? I mean, Laurence Olivier was bandied about as a serious choice for the part, but I think Coppola always wanted Brando because there really was no one else. Anthony Quinn might've been able to do in a pinch, but really, who else was there? * DDL/Oldman is a worthy modern comparison, but I'd actually argue it's somewhat inverted as well. Day-Lewis is a thing unto his own; his mystique and intense privacy, along with his "method" and selectivity, have made him a near-mythic figure, one who only comes out when he feels the time is right, and knocks it out of the park. His catalogue may not be as wide or diverse, but the man has a handful of truly iconic performances to his credit. I've long argued that Oldman's biggest hindrance is his complete lack of selectivity, as well as the fact that he is almost too chameleonic; the man will take just about any role thrown at him, and no matter how good he is at disappearing into the part, it almost feels it's in service of very little. Oldman would've benefited greatly from a bit of the DDL formula in his career management. In terms of their legacies, I think Oldman (despite having the wider catalogue and more mainstream fare) might find it tougher to stick around in the public consciousness versus Day-Lewis, who has fewer movies but the roles themselves are much more iconic. So in a sense, Day-Lewis is Clift if Clift had Brando's wattage, whereas Oldman is Brando with Clift's rep. * EDIT: So apparently, Brando wasn't of Italian heritage? Huh.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 3, 2018 21:20:08 GMT
I think it's a bit lazy to shoehorn DDL/Oldman as a Clift/Brando analogue, especially since a perfectly good, and much more accurate one for them already exists. Day-Lewis and Oldman's "rivalry" pretty much mirrors that of Laurence Olivier (DDL) and Alec Guinness (Oldman). Just with a lot less stage acting. Each pair considered the top protean shapeshifting British film actors of their day. Guinness/Oldman were perhaps seen as the more naturally "gifted" shapeshifters, but were at best always character actors, even in lead roles. Olivier/DDL had the leading man looks to play the romantic leading man roles as well as those make-up heavy character parts. Olivier/DDL earned more industry reverence and awards than Oldman/Guinness, but Oldman/Guinness cememted themselves in popular culture by playing key roles in iconic franchises (Star Wars/Harry Potter/Batman). And both Oldman/Guinness both played George Smiley.
There's really no good Clift/Brando analogue for the Oldman/DDL generation. Denzel Washington is by far the most revered American actor of his era, so I guess he'd be the Brando analogue. But he doesn't really have a Clift. I guess Sean Penn was pushed over him in the media for many years, but they barely ever acknowledged each other or competed directly for roles. And I've always thought of Sean Penn as a Rod Steiger, if Steiger got a bit more overrated for a while. And Washington has been lapping the field in his generation (at least with the American ones) for the last decade, and doesn't seem like he's ever needed a "rival" to motivate him.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 3, 2018 21:44:26 GMT
I think it's a bit lazy to shoehorn DDL/Oldman as a Clift/Brando analogue, especially since a perfectly good, and much more accurate one for them already exists. Day-Lewis and Oldman's "rivalry" pretty much mirrors that of Laurence Olivier (DDL) and Alec Guinness (Oldman). Just with a lot less stage acting. Each pair considered the top protean shapeshifting British film actors of their day. Guinness/Oldman were perhaps seen as the more naturally "gifted" shapeshifters, but were at best always character actors, even in lead roles. Olivier/DDL had the leading man looks to play the romantic leading man roles as well as those make-up heavy character parts. Olivier/DDL earned more industry reverence and awards than Oldman/Guinness, but Oldman/Guinness cememted themselves in popular culture by playing key roles in iconic franchises (Star Wars/Harry Potter/Batman). And both Oldman/Guinness both played George Smiley. There's really no good Clift/Brando analogue for the Oldman/DDL generation. Denzel Washington is the most revered American actor of his era, so I guess he'd be the Brando analogue. But he doesn't really have a Clift. I guess Sean Penn was pushed over him in the media for many years, but they barely ever acknowledged each other or competed directly for roles. And I've always thought of Sean Penn as a Rod Steiger, if Steiger got a bit more overrated in the 80's and 2000's. And Washington has been lapping the field in his generation (at least with the American ones) for the last decade, and doesn't seem like he's ever needed a "rival" to motivate him. Yeah, the Guinness/Olivier comparison is much more valid, I suppose, but I used the other one to illustrate a point. I think the waters have been muddied over the last thirty-odd years that I think that if you wanted to fit Washington into the Brando role, you could look at any actors regardless of their heritage/birthplace because by the time those guys hit the scene, acting had become much more global. But Washington himself is odd because he rarely ever competed for roles the way a lot of "rivals" do; due to his race, he was pigeonholed into playing certain roles. And as we've discussed before, the '80s were rife with acolytes to Pacino/De Niro, guys who wanted to be bad boys and wound up taking it too far (your Rourkes, your Penns, your Eric Robertses). I think Washington's "generational rivalry" is kinda split across several factions. I think he'd be compared to Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe, Tom Cruise, and Daniel Day-Lewis. Those are his big four. You could classify Oldman in there as well, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Jul 3, 2018 22:02:12 GMT
He's old... but probably quite wealthy.
He's Kirk Douglas' son so he's practically Hollywood royalty.
Is he single or better still does he have a son?
CZJ could be my mother-in-law!!!!
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 3, 2018 22:14:16 GMT
I think it's a bit lazy to shoehorn DDL/Oldman as a Clift/Brando analogue, especially since a perfectly good, and much more accurate one for them already exists. Day-Lewis and Oldman's "rivalry" pretty much mirrors that of Laurence Olivier (DDL) and Alec Guinness (Oldman). Just with a lot less stage acting. Each pair considered the top protean shapeshifting British film actors of their day. Guinness/Oldman were perhaps seen as the more naturally "gifted" shapeshifters, but were at best always character actors, even in lead roles. Olivier/DDL had the leading man looks to play the romantic leading man roles as well as those make-up heavy character parts. Olivier/DDL earned more industry reverence and awards than Oldman/Guinness, but Oldman/Guinness cememted themselves in popular culture by playing key roles in iconic franchises (Star Wars/Harry Potter/Batman). And both Oldman/Guinness both played George Smiley. There's really no good Clift/Brando analogue for the Oldman/DDL generation. Denzel Washington is the most revered American actor of his era, so I guess he'd be the Brando analogue. But he doesn't really have a Clift. I guess Sean Penn was pushed over him in the media for many years, but they barely ever acknowledged each other or competed directly for roles. And I've always thought of Sean Penn as a Rod Steiger, if Steiger got a bit more overrated in the 80's and 2000's. And Washington has been lapping the field in his generation (at least with the American ones) for the last decade, and doesn't seem like he's ever needed a "rival" to motivate him. Yeah, the Guinness/Olivier comparison is much more valid, I suppose, but I used the other one to illustrate a point. I think the waters have been muddied over the last thirty-odd years that I think that if you wanted to fit Washington into the Brando role, you could look at any actors regardless of their heritage/birthplace because by the time those guys hit the scene, acting had become much more global. But Washington himself is odd because he rarely ever competed for roles the way a lot of "rivals" do; due to his race, he was pigeonholed into playing certain roles. And as we've discussed before, the '80s were rife with acolytes to Pacino/De Niro, guys who wanted to be bad boys and wound up taking it too far (your Rourkes, your Penns, your Eric Robertses). I think Washington's "generational rivalry" is kinda split across several factions. I think he'd be compared to Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe, Tom Cruise, and Daniel Day-Lewis. Those are his big four. You could classify Oldman in there as well, I suppose. I agree that the globalisation and internationalisation of the film and acting industry has muddied the waters a bit. Washington is probably the male equivalent of Meryl Streep in the sense that like Streep, she may have had several different rivals over the years (Lange, Close, Judy Davis etc), but just outlasts them due to sheer longevity. SeanJoyce once argued that Laurence Fishburne was Denzel's key rival early on, since they both had major mainstream success and accolades (on stage and film) and both were probably in direct competition for roles. But Washington eventually left Fishburne in the dust. I think the Hanks comparisons were more due to the fact that both Washington and Hanks had an ability to play relatable "everyman" characters. With DDL, any "rivalry" is literally about who has the right to be called the world's greatest actor. And they both have the strongest awards track records of their generation. I feel like Russell Crowe was maybe Washington's most direct rival for awhile. They both had the alpha-dog quality that really dominated leading man acting for much of the late 90's and 2000's. They competed for Oscars, and Washington went through a period where he was making non-race specific studio movies that Crowe would have been considered for as well (The Manchurian Canididate, Inside Man, Man On Fire.....even John Q). It culminated in American Gangster, where Crowe admitted he'd read the script without even being attached (because he keeps an eye out for hot projects) and wanted to play Frank Lucas (Denzel's role. He obviously couldn't, because of race). But even The Equalizer originally had Crowe attached. I think it's telling that after The Book Of Eli, Crowe went onto to make Broken City with one of the Hughes Brother. I can see Crowe playing (or wanting to play) Washington's role in Book Of Eli (or even Oldman's to be fair).
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 3, 2018 22:18:04 GMT
I think it's a bit lazy to shoehorn DDL/Oldman as a Clift/Brando analogue, especially since a perfectly good, and much more accurate one for them already exists. Day-Lewis and Oldman's "rivalry" pretty much mirrors that of Laurence Olivier (DDL) and Alec Guinness (Oldman). Just with a lot less stage acting. Each pair considered the top protean shapeshifting British film actors of their day. Guinness/Oldman were perhaps seen as the more naturally "gifted" shapeshifters, but were at best always character actors, even in lead roles. Olivier/DDL had the leading man looks to play the romantic leading man roles as well as those make-up heavy character parts. Olivier/DDL earned more industry reverence and awards than Oldman/Guinness, but Oldman/Guinness cememted themselves in popular culture by playing key roles in iconic franchises (Star Wars/Harry Potter/Batman). And both Oldman/Guinness both played George Smiley. There's really no good Clift/Brando analogue for the Oldman/DDL generation. Denzel Washington is by far the most revered American actor of his era, so I guess he'd be the Brando analogue. But he doesn't really have a Clift. I guess Sean Penn was pushed over him in the media for many years, but they barely ever acknowledged each other or competed directly for roles. And I've always thought of Sean Penn as a Rod Steiger, if Steiger got a bit more overrated for a while. And Washington has been lapping the field in his generation (at least with the American ones) for the last decade, and doesn't seem like he's ever needed a "rival" to motivate him. I think you missed the point but I do think theyre the closest to each other. I think the Washington counterpart is (or will be) Leonardo DiCaprio. Washington is literally old enough to be Dicaprio's father. You might be able to compare them in historical terms, but not as generational counterparts.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 3, 2018 22:31:30 GMT
I agree that the globalisation and internationalisation of the film and acting industry has muddied the waters a bit. Washington is probably the male equivalent of Meryl Streep in the sense that like Streep, she may have had several different rivals over the years (Lange, Close, Judy Davis etc), but just outlasts them due to sheer longevity. SeanJoyce once argued that Laurence Fishburne was Denzel's key rival early on, since they both had major mainstream success and accolades (on stage and film) and both were probably in direct competition for roles. But Washington eventually left Fishburne in the dust. I think the Hanks comparisons were more due to the fact that both Washington and Hanks had an ability to play relatable "everyman" characters. With DDL, any "rivalry" is literally about who has the right to be called the world's greatest actor. And they both have the strongest awards track records of their generation. I feel like Russell Crowe was maybe Washington's most direct rival for awhile. They both had the alpha-dog quality that really dominated leading man acting for much of the late 90's and 2000's. They competed for Oscars, and Washington went through a period where he was making non-race specific studio movies that Crowe would have been considered for as well (The Manchurian Canididate, Inside Man, Man On Fire.....even John Q). It culminated in American Gangster, where Crowe admitted he'd read the script without even being attached (because he keeps an eye out for hot projects) and wanted to play Frank Lucas (Denzel's role. He obviously couldn't, because of race). But even The Equalizer originally had Crowe attached. I think it's telling that after The Book Of Eli, Crowe went onto to make Broken City with one of the Hughes Brother. I can see Crowe playing (or wanting to play) Washington's role in Book Of Eli (or even Oldman's to be fair). Yeah, Crowe is probably the closest in terms of style and form to Washington out of these four, and I also think he and Washington made a cracking screen pairing. Virtuosity sucked, but you could tell that the two of them had something between them, and their shared screentime in American Gangster really capitalized on it. But I think back to something like 3:10 to Yuma, which had Crowe as a prime villain, and wonder what it would've been like if Washington had played Bale's character. I'd like to see Denzel and Rusty go head-to-head one more time. I'd also argue that Mel Gibson might very well have been something of a rival to Washington, at least for a time.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 3, 2018 23:00:02 GMT
I think some of the modern comparisons lose the beauty of the Clift-Brando rivalry. Really what we've done in the last few posts is just compare actors but its not the same as Clift-Brando because as stephen said that comparison endures but it endures because of the circumstance.
Denzel Washington is sort of like Brando but so is Penn (those are the 1-2 of the 80s American group), Russell Crowe is sort of like Brando too. So now you got 3 Brando's and no Clift, big deal...........In the 70s, DeNiro was Brando AND Clift (If anything, Pacino was Dean, Nicholson's Bogart, Hoffman's Lemmon).
You can't really transfer it to these different generations and keep what made it special - what happened with Clift and Brando was actors of a certain type and age emerged at the same time at the cusp of a change in the form (which was going to happen with or without Brando, it's the Group Theater), and the one got held back by fate (his car accident) while the other ascended - it wasn't JUST the work.
The closest I can think to compare it was Depardieu (Brando)-Dewaere (Clift) - same thing and the added dimension of a change happening in the French film industry (at the time, the dominance of a few studios), and one actor's death (Dewaere's suicide) and one other (Depardieu) ascends.
Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary.....but I don't think it's just about 2 actor rivalries - that Brando-Clift thing had historical overtones to it......
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 3, 2018 23:07:25 GMT
I think some of the modern comparisons lose the beauty of the Clift-Brando rivalry. Really what we've done in the last few posts is just compare actors but its not the same as Clift-Brando because as stephen said that comparison endures but it endures because of the circumstance. Denzel Washington is sort of like Brando but so is Penn (those are the 1-2 of the 80s American group), Russell Crowe is sort of like Brando too. So now you got 3 Brando's and no Clift, big deal...........In the 70s, DeNiro was Brando AND Clift (If anything, Pacino was Dean, Nicholson's Bogart, Hoffman's Lemmon). You can't really transfer it to these different generations and keep what made it special - what happened with Clift and Brando was actors of a certain type and age emerged at the same time at the cusp of a change in the form (which was going to happen with or without Brando, it's the Group Theater), and the one got held back by fate (his car accident) while the other ascended - it wasn't JUST the work. The closest I can think to compare it was Depardieu (Brando)-Dewaere (Clift) - same thing and the added dimension of a change happening in the French film industry (at the time, the dominance of a few studios), and one actor's death (Dewaere's suicide) and one other (Depardieu) ascends. Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary.....but I don't think it's just about 2 actor rivalries - that Brando-Clift thing had historical overtones to it...... Indeed. Brando and Clift were both game-changers of the craft. They were two of the original method actors who broke free of the confines of traditional acting on screen, and really, no one has really come along since who changed the face of acting since. The only ones you could really argue that have done that recently are Daniel Day-Lewis, whose style isn't even really method but more of a unique brand that spawned legions of copycats (i.e. Jared Leto), and Nicolas Cage, who intentionally has pushed for some sort of bizarre neo-Kabuki style that can be off-putting, but neither one has done it in such a way that it changed how actors were used in film. John Garfield, I would argue, was one of the very first to do it, but no one quite knew what they were looking at with him. Then came Clift. And then Brando broke the whole thing wide open.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 3, 2018 23:08:27 GMT
Bringing it back to Clift and Brando for a sec....I'd argue that Clift might actually have at least as strong a collection of film classics as Brando from the late 40's through the 60's.
Think about it.
Red River A Place In The Sun From Here To Eternity Suddenly, Last Summer The Misfits Judgement At Nuremberg
Those are SEVEN stone cold classic movies of that era. Clift's problem may be that his style was actually too understated for his own good. He's sharing screen time with massive movie icons in almost all these films, and their screen presences mostly feel bigger than his. John Wayne, Elizabeth Taylor, Burt Lancaster, Frank Sinatra,, Katherine Hepburn, Marilyn Monroe, Clark Gable, Spencer Tracy, Judy Garland etc.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 3, 2018 23:12:35 GMT
Bringing it back to Clift and Brando for a sec....I'd argue that Clift might actually have at least as strong acollection of film classics as Brando from the late 40's through the 60's. Think about it. Red River A Place In The Sun From Here To Eternity Suddenly, Last Summer The Misfits Judgement At Nuremberg Those are SEVEN stone cold classic movies of that era. Clift's problem may be that his style was actually too understated for his own good. He's sharing screen time with massive movie icons in almost all these films, and their screen presences mostly feel bigger than his. John Wayne, Elizabeth Taylor, Burt Lancaster, Frank Sinatra,, Katherine Hepburn, Marilyn Monroe, Clark Gable, Spencer Tracy, Judy Garland etc. That goes back to what I said earlier: Clift was a "giver", a generous screen partner who acted as fuel for other actors around him. Clift was never one to really showboat (although if he was allowed to, he could do it with the best of them). It was rare to have someone like that back in the day when actors literally fought tooth-and-nail for billing.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jul 3, 2018 23:14:19 GMT
I really like him. What he lacks in range he more than makes up for with natural gravitas and charisma. He's a very consistent, grounded performer and he excels with good material. Wall Street, Wonder Boys, Traffic, and The War of the Roses are my favorites.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 3, 2018 23:15:57 GMT
I think some of the modern comparisons lose the beauty of the Clift-Brando rivalry. Really what we've done in the last few posts is just compare actors but its not the same as Clift-Brando because as stephen said that comparison endures but it endures because of the circumstance. Denzel Washington is sort of like Brando but so is Penn (those are the 1-2 of the 80s American group), Russell Crowe is sort of like Brando too. So now you got 3 Brando's and no Clift, big deal...........In the 70s, DeNiro was Brando AND Clift (If anything, Pacino was Dean, Nicholson's Bogart, Hoffman's Lemmon). You can't really transfer it to these different generations and keep what made it special - what happened with Clift and Brando was actors of a certain type and age emerged at the same time at the cusp of a change in the form (which was going to happen with or without Brando, it's the Group Theater), and the one got held back by fate (his car accident) while the other ascended - it wasn't JUST the work. The closest I can think to compare it was Depardieu (Brando)-Dewaere (Clift) - same thing and the added dimension of a change happening in the French film industry (at the time, the dominance of a few studios), and one actor's death (Dewaere's suicide) and one other (Depardieu) ascends. Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary.....but I don't think it's just about 2 actor rivalries - that Brando-Clift thing had historical overtones to it...... Indeed. Brando and Clift were both game-changers of the craft. They were two of the original method actors who broke free of the confines of traditional acting on screen, and really, no one has really come along since who changed the face of acting since. The only ones you could really argue that have done that recently are Daniel Day-Lewis, whose style isn't even really method but more of a unique brand that spawned legions of copycats (i.e. Jared Leto), and Nicolas Cage, who intentionally has pushed for some sort of bizarre neo-Kabuki style that can be off-putting, but neither one has done it in such a way that it changed how actors were used in film. John Garfield, I would argue, was one of the very first to do it, but no one quite knew what they were looking at with him. Then came Clift. And then Brando broke the whole thing wide open. I don't think Day-Lewis has really changed acting at all. He's just taken Robert DeNiro's behavior in the 70's and 80' s to it's logical conclusion. DeNiro, as much as he's floundered for the last two decades, was the game changer in terms of extreme commitment to a role. Actors like Day-Lewis, Christian Bale, Jared Leto are basically just mini-DeNiro's in the lengths they travel
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 3, 2018 23:18:45 GMT
Indeed. Brando and Clift were both game-changers of the craft. They were two of the original method actors who broke free of the confines of traditional acting on screen, and really, no one has really come along since who changed the face of acting since. The only ones you could really argue that have done that recently are Daniel Day-Lewis, whose style isn't even really method but more of a unique brand that spawned legions of copycats (i.e. Jared Leto), and Nicolas Cage, who intentionally has pushed for some sort of bizarre neo-Kabuki style that can be off-putting, but neither one has done it in such a way that it changed how actors were used in film. John Garfield, I would argue, was one of the very first to do it, but no one quite knew what they were looking at with him. Then came Clift. And then Brando broke the whole thing wide open. I don't think Day-Lewis has really changed acting at all. He's just taken Robert DeNiro's behavior in the 70's and 80' s to it's logical conclusion. DeNiro, as much as he's floundered for the last two decades, was the game changer in terms of extreme commitment to a role. Actors like Day-Lewis, Christian Bale, Jared Leto are basically just mini-DeNiro's in the lengths they travel But regardless of Day-Lewis's influences, he molded his style in such a way that now he's become inextricably linked with method acting, even to the point that people misunderstand what method acting is because they think it's what DDL does. There are definite antecedents in De Niro, though, you're right about that, but I want to say that there seems to be some sort of (for lack of a better word) honesty in what Day-Lewis does, which you don't really see in Bale and Leto, both of whom come off as posturing when they go through intense weight fluctuations or do whatever weird things behind the scenes.
|
|