|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 6, 2018 13:54:34 GMT
In the recent poll here for greatest actresses, Nicole Kidman and Cate Blanchett were the two youngest active actresses to feature in the top 10. Blanchett is 49 and Kidman is 51. Both are very prolific and maintain a high standard.
Obviously a poll here means little in the scheme of things, but Kidman and Blanchett's esteem and careers in the real world do point to GOAT challenging status.
So you'd imagine both have many years ahead of them to add to their esteem and accomplishments.
Let's be real. Neither of them are coming close to Streep's Oscar nomination tally. That ship has sailed for anyone. But is there a way their reputations could compete with Streep in another way? Perhaps if they both won 3+ Oscars (like Ingrid Bergman, runner-up to Streep on that poll).
Both Kidman and Blanchett are accomplished and active stage actresses, and are more likely to win a Tony or Olivier Award than Streep, who seems to have given up on stage
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 6, 2018 17:12:02 GMT
They are very different, but I think they will rank really well overall in the long run. Blanchett who I voted for and highly too is the female DDL - so to speak, her name carries the burden of greatness. Kidman who I did not vote for but who I like, in particular her gutsiness, doesn't have that burden on her but is more identifiable and movie star-ish (a good thing). She's more likable and has some special, out of left field work (To Die For) that's among her best stuff ever. In am not a big believer in awards mattering especially for females, at all (ask Sally Field) but to be comparable to Streep you have to make a dent in Oscar nods - more so than for the men because she obliterates the field. Maybe get to the halfway point of her total and approach her for wins - a 3rd for Blanchett would be a big deal........or you have to start racking up TV wins - TV is the new theater in a way and Streep is major there too.........Kidman isn't that active in theater now - long gap, but she does it well, but is active in TV. The mix will help them because in the "Best actor across all 3 mediums" thread Streep's one of the few American actress that is a force in all 3 (not as much a theater force but a presence at least) - that can stand with her worldwide peers/competitors/the British .
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 6, 2018 17:30:32 GMT
Streep's awards tally is going to stand long after she's gone. There was a time where I thought that Jennifer Lawrence might challenge her based on her extremely impressive start, but passion for her seems to have cooled immensely; she needs to get back in the game quick if she hopes to keep that trend going.
As for the actresses you mentioned, Blanchett is pretty much seen as the Meryl Streep of her age group as it is. She's nominated whenever she's got anything remotely baity in contention, she's got that sort of classical appeal that film and theater snobs enjoy. Streep's TV work is sparse but I'd argue it's stronger than her overall film catalogue (Holocaust and Angels in America are my favorite performances of hers), whereas Blanchett has equal success and prolificacy in film and the stage. Television is where she needs to step up her game. But you know it's a matter of time.
Kidman, as we've discussed before, is in a weird spot. She's certainly got one hell of a roster when it comes to directors she's worked with, she's won acclaim across all three main branches of acting media, and she's got some awards hardware to her name. But she's also got the rep of being a "movie star" rather than a serious actress, and a lot of people ignore the latter in favor of the former. She's also far more esoteric than even Blanchett, who on paper you'd think would be far more "out there" in terms of her acting choices. I'd actually suggest that Kidman might have more in common with a Tilda Swinton than Blanchett, taking on roles with bold visionary directors in projects that might not be so mainstream.
Now the question is this: where will their legacies stand? I think that Blanchett's probably always going to have the edge on Kidman because Kidman has to contend with post-Tom Cruise bias, a more offbeat catalogue, and being known as tabloid fodder for the bulk of her career. Blanchett, like pacinoyes says, kind of has a DDL-esque rep (albeit without the mystique), whereas Kidman is actually very similar to her ex-husband: a strong talent with a rich catalogue that will never be taken quite as seriously as they deserve.
(For what it's worth, I thought both actresses are miles better than Streep.)
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 6, 2018 18:24:34 GMT
Streep's awards tally is going to stand long after she's gone. There was a time where I thought that Jennifer Lawrence might challenge her based on her extremely impressive start, but passion for her seems to have cooled immensely; she needs to get back in the game quick if she hopes to keep that trend going. As for the actresses you mentioned, Blanchett is pretty much seen as the Meryl Streep of her age group as it is. She's nominated whenever she's got anything remotely baity in contention, she's got that sort of classical appeal that film and theater snobs enjoy. Streep's TV work is sparse but I'd argue it's stronger than her overall film catalogue ( Holocaust and Angels in America are my favorite performances of hers), whereas Blanchett has equal success and prolificacy in film and the stage. Television is where she needs to step up her game. But you know it's a matter of time. Kidman, as we've discussed before, is in a weird spot. She's certainly got one hell of a roster when it comes to directors she's worked with, she's won acclaim across all three main branches of acting media, and she's got some awards hardware to her name. But she's also got the rep of being a "movie star" rather than a serious actress, and a lot of people ignore the latter in favor of the former. She's also far more esoteric than even Blanchett, who on paper you'd think would be far more "out there" in terms of her acting choices. I'd actually suggest that Kidman might have more in common with a Tilda Swinton than Blanchett, taking on roles with bold visionary directors in projects that might not be so mainstream. Now the question is this: where will their legacies stand? I think that Blanchett's probably always going to have the edge on Kidman because Kidman has to contend with post-Tom Cruise bias, a more offbeat catalogue, and being known as tabloid fodder for the bulk of her career. Blanchett, like pacinoyes says, kind of has a DDL-esque rep (albeit without the mystique), whereas Kidman is actually very similar to her ex-husband: a strong talent with a rich catalogue that will never be taken quite as seriously as they deserve. (For what it's worth, I thought both actresses are miles better than Streep.) I kind of disagree with Kidman's trajectory. I've always likened Kidman to Katherine Hepburn, also a "movie star" who was for long periods more respected by her industry than the public at large . She did not have that smooth sailing path that someone like Streep had. Again, because she was a "movie star" and her dalliances with Howard Hughes or Spencer Tracey made for idle gossip and tabloid fodder. But Hepburn achieved universal respect and gravitas through longevity. As a viable film actor, she even outlasted Bette Davis. You can already see it happening with Kidman now, after her exceptional 2017 (several acclaimed films and destroying an all-star field to claim the limited series actress Emmy and every other TV prize). Like Hepburn, she's aging into respectability and gravitas, and any movie star "stigma" is simply losing potency. It may still be there in some corners, but when she's still winning accolades at 70 or whatever (and she seems to have that level of longevity in her), the tabloid fodder stuff will be irrellevant. Obviously, someone like Elizabeth Taylor could not overcome it, and faded with middle age, but Kidman's career is stronger than ever over the age of 50. To me, Kidman has passed the most difficult portion of her career, and come out of it on top. At worst, she's on track for Helen Mirren grande dame status. At this stage, I'd say Kidman is far, far more respected than her ex-husband as a thespian. It's not even close. If anything, her "movie star" iconicalism may give her an advantadge over Blanchett as the years go on, because she'll be celebrated like iconic movie stars tend to be, but Kidman will enter that Hepburn phase where it will almost be considered bad manners to act as if anyone ever questioned Hepburn's talent or stature (it was questioned a lot). Blanchett is held in slightly higher esteem now, but Kidman is on a bit of a tear. I could see Blanchettm being less interesting to the public, ending up more in Jessica Lange's or Glenn Close's "runner-up" position in their generation, to Kidman being the most celebrated (ala Hepburn or Streep). I also don't think Blanchett is the Streep of her generation (when it comes to Oscar nominations). No one is. Streep has such an inflated count because she gets tonnes and tonnes of filler nominations. I'd argue that Blanchett's only filler nod was Elizabeth: The Golden Age. When Blanchett gets nominated, she has to earn the accolades the hard way. They don't give her throwaway nominations. If Blanchett could rack up nods like Streep, she'd have nominations for Charlotte Gray, The Shipping News, The Gift, Veronica Guerin and many more. Amy Adams only has 2 less nominations than Blanchett, and she's been active for about a dozen years less than Blanchett. Blanchett's regard by the Academy is impressive. But it's nothing like Streep's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 18:41:40 GMT
Just curious - why are you not including Kate Winslet in this discussion?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 6, 2018 18:43:09 GMT
I kind of disagree with Kidman's trajectory. I've always likened Kidman to Katherine Hepburn, also a "movie star" who was for long periods more respected by her industry than the public at large . She did not have that smooth sailing path that someone like Streep had. Again, because she was a "movie star" and her dalliances with Howard Hughes or Spencer Tracey made for idle gossip and tabloid fodder. But Hepburn achieved universal respect and gravitas through longevity. As a viable film actor, she even outlasted Bette Davis. You can already see it happening with Kidman now, after her exceptional 2017 (several acclaimed films and destroying an all-star field to claim the limited series actress Emmy and every other TV prize). Like Hepburn, she's aging into respectability and gravitas, and any movie star "stigma" is simply losing potency. It may still be there in some corners, but when she's still winning accolades at 70 or whatever (and she seems to have that level of longevity in her), the tabloid fodder stuff will be irrellevant. Obviously, someone like Elizabeth Taylor could not overcome it, and faded with middle age, but Kidman's career is stronger than ever over the age of 50. To me, Kidman has passed the most difficult portion of her career, and come out of it on top. At worst, she's on track for Helen Mirren grande dame status. If anything, her "movie star" iconicalism may give her an advantadge over Blanchett as the years go on, because she'll be celebrated like iconic movie stars tend to be, but Kidman will enter that Hepburn phase where it will almost be considered bad manners to act as if anyone ever questioned Hepburn's talent or stature (it was questioned a lot). Blanchett is held in slightly higher esteem now, but Kidman is on a bit of a tear. I could see Blanchettm being less interesting to the public, ending up more in Jessica Lange's or Glenn Close's "runner-up" position in their generation, to Kidman being the most celebrated (ala Hepburn or Streep). I thought you might disagree with it. Kidman's at a bit of a crossroads here. As she ages out of the more glamorous roles, she might become a Mirren-esque elder stateswoman. It's certainly possible, considering her last couple of years have seen an upswing in her career in terms of accolades (including her best nominated performance to date in Lion). These next few years are crucial for her. You bring up Hepburn, but Hepburn did some of her strongest work in her senior years, so we'd have to see where Kidman goes from here before making that comparison. I think the Elizabeth Taylor comparison is more apt, although I think Taylor wasn't concerned enough to the quality of her work, and let her personal dalliances and movie-star lifestyle get in the way of what could've been a very strong run in her winter years. It says a lot when I'm racking my brain trying to remember anything Taylor did post-1980 and the only thing that comes to mind is the friggin' Flintstones movie. Kidman, by contrast, seems just as focused on the quality of the work and the directors she works with. She is actually doing what I think Tom Cruise needs to do: start working with notable auteurs again in projects that aren't action flicks, because even though he's aces at them and makes them work so well, the window of opportunity is beginning to close. In the end, I think that if Kidman keeps up what she's been doing of late, she should be fine, and I think she'll likely be in the hunt for more awards and even win again by the end of it. But her Oscar win isn't particularly beloved or remembered; as great as she is in The Hours, there are those who considered it a kiss-off win for missing out the previous year (ick!) and The Hours doesn't hold the sort of weight that either of Blanchett's wins do, at least now. Kidman's more renowned work comes from things that weren't recognized by the Academy. Hopefully, the two will coincide at some point so she can have a win that actually gets proper respect (and I say that as someone who really likes her Virginia Woolf and considers it one of the worthier wins of the decade).
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 6, 2018 18:51:49 GMT
You'll get no argument from me on that. Most of Streep's nominations are indeed filler. I'm actually inclined to defend Elizabeth: The Golden Age as an actual worthy performance; it's not as well-sculpted as her first go at the character, but I much prefer it to Notes on a Scandal, Carol and The Aviator in terms of her nominated performances. But of her generation, she's the closest approximation to Streep's awards haul. Winslet (whom I think of as a contemporary of Blanchett but not Kidman for some reason) runs her a good race, and Amy Adams is going the Thelma Ritter route by the looks of it (although I think when she finally does win, they might decide to ignore her after the fact as they sometimes do). But in terms of actresses in the 35-50 range, Blanchett's the one with the rep that most closely approximates Streep's. It's obviously not a one-to-one exact comparison.
Blanchett's really the only one of her generation that I can readily see getting a third Oscar. Winslet got reasonably close to her second in 2015 (insomuch as anyone could've beaten Vikander's category-fraudin' ass), but the Academy cooled on Winslet mighty quick after her 2008 win, in much the same way I think they will when it's Adams's turn. If we consider Kidman a contemporary of both women, she's already on a harder track because she's past fifty and Supporting Actress is the hardest award to win multiple times, according to stats. It's certainly possible, but if I had to guess, I'd say Winslet and Kidman wind up finishing with two whereas Blanchett gets three.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 6, 2018 18:55:01 GMT
Just curious - why are you not including Kate Winslet in this discussion? Well....I used the Greatest Actress Poll as a flimsy pretext to start this topic, and I pointed out that Kidman and Blanchett were the youngest active actresses in the top 10. Winslet was not in the top 10. But mainly, even though she has a similar track record with the Academy as Blanchett, I don't think she's as protean a talent as Blanchett or Kidman. Winslet is more in that stolid British tradition of Kerr, Dench etc. I simply find ther talents more comparable to Streep's than Winslet's. Which isnt to say Winslet isnt a fine actress. Also while to some people it isnt an issue, it is to me that Winslet has never done stage (never mind done it succesfully), which Kidman, Blanchett and Streep all have (successfully). I think you need that in your armoury if you are challenging for the very top.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 6, 2018 19:08:49 GMT
I kind of disagree with Kidman's trajectory. I've always likened Kidman to Katherine Hepburn, also a "movie star" who was for long periods more respected by her industry than the public at large . She did not have that smooth sailing path that someone like Streep had. Again, because she was a "movie star" and her dalliances with Howard Hughes or Spencer Tracey made for idle gossip and tabloid fodder. But Hepburn achieved universal respect and gravitas through longevity. As a viable film actor, she even outlasted Bette Davis. You can already see it happening with Kidman now, after her exceptional 2017 (several acclaimed films and destroying an all-star field to claim the limited series actress Emmy and every other TV prize). Like Hepburn, she's aging into respectability and gravitas, and any movie star "stigma" is simply losing potency. It may still be there in some corners, but when she's still winning accolades at 70 or whatever (and she seems to have that level of longevity in her), the tabloid fodder stuff will be irrellevant. Obviously, someone like Elizabeth Taylor could not overcome it, and faded with middle age, but Kidman's career is stronger than ever over the age of 50. To me, Kidman has passed the most difficult portion of her career, and come out of it on top. At worst, she's on track for Helen Mirren grande dame status. If anything, her "movie star" iconicalism may give her an advantadge over Blanchett as the years go on, because she'll be celebrated like iconic movie stars tend to be, but Kidman will enter that Hepburn phase where it will almost be considered bad manners to act as if anyone ever questioned Hepburn's talent or stature (it was questioned a lot). Blanchett is held in slightly higher esteem now, but Kidman is on a bit of a tear. I could see Blanchettm being less interesting to the public, ending up more in Jessica Lange's or Glenn Close's "runner-up" position in their generation, to Kidman being the most celebrated (ala Hepburn or Streep). I thought you might disagree with it. Kidman's at a bit of a crossroads here. As she ages out of the more glamorous roles, she might become a Mirren-esque elder stateswoman. It's certainly possible, considering her last couple of years have seen an upswing in her career in terms of accolades (including her best nominated performance to date in Lion). These next few years are crucial for her. You bring up Hepburn, but Hepburn did some of her strongest work in her senior years, so we'd have to see where Kidman goes from here before making that comparison. I think the Elizabeth Taylor comparison is more apt, although I think Taylor wasn't concerned enough to the quality of her work, and let her personal dalliances and movie-star lifestyle get in the way of what could've been a very strong run in her winter years. It says a lot when I'm racking my brain trying to remember anything Taylor did post-1980 and the only thing that comes to mind is the friggin' Flintstones movie. Kidman, by contrast, seems just as focused on the quality of the work and the directors she works with. She is actually doing what I think Tom Cruise needs to do: start working with notable auteurs again in projects that aren't action flicks, because even though he's aces at them and makes them work so well, the window of opportunity is beginning to close. In the end, I think that if Kidman keeps up what she's been doing of late, she should be fine, and I think she'll likely be in the hunt for more awards and even win again by the end of it. But her Oscar win isn't particularly beloved or remembered; as great as she is in The Hours, there are those who considered it a kiss-off win for missing out the previous year (ick!) and The Hours doesn't hold the sort of weight that either of Blanchett's wins do, at least now. Kidman's more renowned work comes from things that weren't recognized by the Academy. Hopefully, the two will coincide at some point so she can have a win that actually gets proper respect (and I say that as someone who really likes her Virginia Woolf and considers it one of the worthier wins of the decade). Not really sure it matters how Kidman's Oscar win is regarded, if her career is a whole is regarded in great esteem. Also, I don't think Blanchett's win for The Aviator is held in especially high esteem. I mean Rolling Stone, who ranked Kidman's win their least favorite lead actress win of the 21st century, also added that Kidman was arguably the world' s greatest actor for a 5 year period (1999-2004), and that for many other actors, The Hours would be a career high point. It's just that Kidman's body of work is so great to them, that they don't see it as such for her. www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-lists/best-actress-oscar-winners-since-2000-ranked-worst-to-best-23877/nicole-kidman-the-hours-151873/"From 1999 to 2004, Nicole Kidman was arguably the world's best actor, working with top-notch fillmakers and lining up a string of career-defining performances: Eyes Wide Shut, Moulin Rouge, The Others, Dogville, Birth. By comparison, the role that won her an Oscar, the melancholy author Virginia Woolf in The Hours, is merely good — flecked with sadness and desperation and steel, but also weighed down by the ponderous solemnity that director Stephen Daldry always brings to his work. In other words, Kidman's low placement on this list is less an indictment of her performance than an indication of the glassy film for which she won. For plenty of other actors, The Hours would have been their high-water mark". It's why the Tom Cruise comparison doesn't hold up. No serious publication would claim that Cruise was ever the world's best actor for 5 years (movie star, maybe. Actor, no way in hell). You'd have plenty willing to go to bat for Kidman on that score. I think within the industry and in critical circles, the gap in perception between Kidman and Blanchett isn't particularly wide anymore (like it probably was during Kidman's "botox era"). if anything, it's becoming fashionable to express a preference for Kidman as the bigger talent.
|
|
|
Post by fiosnasiob on Aug 6, 2018 19:18:19 GMT
No, they won't. But it will be interesting to see how they will endure. The thing is Meryl is an anomaly for actresses and she's still going very strong at almost 70. So the gap between her and the great actresses from the next generation isn't really diminishing (unlike the actors).
Since people like to talk abvout that GOAT actresses list we did, great (Streep's rivals) actresses like Jessica Lange, Sissy Spacek...even Susan Saradon also had great roles after great roles, oscars nomination after oscar nomination and if we did the list in say, 1997 they would rank higher than they are today. Because while they had their glory days (everything seemed good for them, maybe people where asking themselves if they could equal Bette Davis or K. Hepburn ???), entering in their 50's it becomes much more hard for them to find interesting roles and over the years they lost "the battle" against the anomaly Meryl Streep in terms of reputation and status.
So now that Kidman & Blanchett are entering the crucial age of 50, to be able to walk on Meryl Streep's feet they will have to maintain a high standard during the next 15 years, history has shown that it's not an easy task. Will they get the roles, will they still be hungry for them ? Time will tell but all in all I don't think anybody is touching Streep. I also remember when Kate Winslet was getting nomination after nomination at a relatively young age and considered to equal Streep...now she's been nominated once for a supporting role in the last 10 year.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 6, 2018 19:32:46 GMT
No, they won't. But it will be interesting to see how they will endure. The thing is Meryl is an anomaly for actresses and she's still going very strong at almost 70. So the gap between her and the great actresses from the next generation isn't really diminishing (unlike the actors). Since people like to talk abvout that GOAT actresses list we did, great (Streep's rivals) actresses like Jessica Lange, Sissy Spacek...even Susan Saradon also had great roles after great roles, oscars nomination after oscar nomination and if we did the list in say, 1997 they would rank higher than they are today. Because while they had their glory days, entering in their 50's it becomes much more hard for them to find interesting roles and over the years they lost "the battle" against the anomaly Meryl Streep in terms of reputation and status. So now that Kidman & Blanchett are entering the crucial age of 50, to be able to walk on Meryl Streep's feet they will have to maintain a high standard during the next 15 years, history has shown that it's not an easy task. Will they get the roles, will they still be hungry for them ? Time will tell but all in all I don't think anybody is touching Streep. I also remember when Kate Winslet was getting nomination after nomination at a relatively young age and considered to equal Streep...now she's been nominated once for a supporting role in the last 10 year. Well one advantadge Kidman has over many of the GOAT level actresses in Hollywood circles, is that her standing is less based/reliant on her Oscar track record (which is OK, and will likely improve, but is nothing special for an actress) and more based on the strength of her work with auteur fillmmakers. You are right about Winslet....if she isn't racking up Oscar nods at a clip, her place in the conversation becomes much less secure. Kidman is closer to someone like Huppert, in that her reputation is less reliant on the volume of Oscar recognition. When critics and cinephiles talk about Kidman's career, it becomes apparent that much of her non-nominated auter work is held in higher esteem than her Oscar acknowledged stuff. Kidman was one of the first Hollywood actresses in the wake of Streep's generation, smart enough to operate both within and outside the system. Working with studios and independents. And cultivating the arthouse. But Kidman has always been a genuine cinephile, which in the long run helped her career a lot.
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Aug 6, 2018 19:46:22 GMT
Jesus H Christ! The Kidmaniacs have infiltrated the forum.
I think Blannie is already seen as the successor to Streep's crown and has been for many years now.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 6, 2018 19:51:03 GMT
I also have to agree that Streep's hunger is insane. There must have been many times when here age group contemporaries (Sarandon, Lange, Close, Spacek etc) must have been just praying for Streep to retire. or even take a long ass vacation But Streep never stops working. So as has been said, she kept building a gap between her own generation, and isn't allowing the generations behind her to build up a head of steam. So yes, Streep is an anomaly in many ways.
|
|
|
Post by fiosnasiob on Aug 6, 2018 19:53:21 GMT
No, they won't. But it will be interesting to see how they will endure. The thing is Meryl is an anomaly for actresses and she's still going very strong at almost 70. So the gap between her and the great actresses from the next generation isn't really diminishing (unlike the actors). Since people like to talk abvout that GOAT actresses list we did, great (Streep's rivals) actresses like Jessica Lange, Sissy Spacek...even Susan Saradon also had great roles after great roles, oscars nomination after oscar nomination and if we did the list in say, 1997 they would rank higher than they are today. Because while they had their glory days, entering in their 50's it becomes much more hard for them to find interesting roles and over the years they lost "the battle" against the anomaly Meryl Streep in terms of reputation and status. So now that Kidman & Blanchett are entering the crucial age of 50, to be able to walk on Meryl Streep's feet they will have to maintain a high standard during the next 15 years, history has shown that it's not an easy task. Will they get the roles, will they still be hungry for them ? Time will tell but all in all I don't think anybody is touching Streep. I also remember when Kate Winslet was getting nomination after nomination at a relatively young age and considered to equal Streep...now she's been nominated once for a supporting role in the last 10 year. Well one advantadge Kidman has over many of the GOAT level actresses in Hollywood circles, is that her standing is less based/reliant on her Oscar track record (which is OK, and will likely improve, but is nothing special for an actress) and more based on the strength of her work with auteur fillmmakers. You are right about Winslet....if she isn't racking up Oscar nods at a clip, her place in the conversation becomes much less secure. Kidman is closer to someone like Huppert, in that her reputation is less reliant on the volume of Oscar recognition. When critics and cinephiles talk about Kidman's career, it becomes apparent that much of her non-nominated auter work is held in higher esteem than her Oscar acknowledged stuff. Kidman was one of the first Hollywood actresses in the wake of Streep's generation, smart enough to operate both within and outside the system. Working with studios and independents. And cultivating the arthouse. But Kidman has always been a genuine cinephile, which in the long run helped her career a lot. True about Kidman's non oscar nominated works being held in great esteem (To Die For being the perfect example) but I think for many people the number of oscar nominations is important to judge an actor's statut/reputation, she obviously should have few more tho. Now Huppert is a foreign actress acting in foreign language film for the most part, it's different. One thing that doesn't look good for kidman's future is that she's already playing suppoting roles as a mom wearing perm and stuff (Lion, Boy Erased) I mean Streep didn't do that when she was 50, she hardly do it now. She maybe should be careful about it that it doesn't become a trend, Hollywood may be used to it..
|
|
LaraQ
Badass
English Rose
Posts: 2,305
Likes: 2,839
|
Post by LaraQ on Aug 6, 2018 20:01:00 GMT
Given that Saoirse Ronan has 3 Oscar nominations at the age of 24, with maybe another on the way,she could be the one to surpass Meryl's total.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 6, 2018 20:28:48 GMT
Well one advantadge Kidman has over many of the GOAT level actresses in Hollywood circles, is that her standing is less based/reliant on her Oscar track record (which is OK, and will likely improve, but is nothing special for an actress) and more based on the strength of her work with auteur fillmmakers. You are right about Winslet....if she isn't racking up Oscar nods at a clip, her place in the conversation becomes much less secure. Kidman is closer to someone like Huppert, in that her reputation is less reliant on the volume of Oscar recognition. When critics and cinephiles talk about Kidman's career, it becomes apparent that much of her non-nominated auter work is held in higher esteem than her Oscar acknowledged stuff. Kidman was one of the first Hollywood actresses in the wake of Streep's generation, smart enough to operate both within and outside the system. Working with studios and independents. And cultivating the arthouse. But Kidman has always been a genuine cinephile, which in the long run helped her career a lot. One thing that doesn't look good for kidman's future is that she's already playing suppoting roles as a mom wearing perm and stuff (Lion, Boy Erased) I mean Streep didn't do that when she was 50, she hardly do it now. She maybe should be careful about it that it doesn't become a trend, Hollywood may be used to it.. Kidman has always been far more associated with glamour and beauty than Streep (who came up in that odd period in the 1980's, when many major female movie stars mostly didn't seem very glamarous, even if they were attractive). It's a help (it allows people to see you as an old-fashioned "movie star") and a hinderance (people underestimate you or want to give you less credit if you play up your looks in your arsenal, especially as a woman). I think it's just a smart career move to play these ordinary looking moms with bad perms. It's conditioning audiences to be accepting that she'll be playing more and more character roles as she's aging where looking good isn't that important. When you are known as a great beauty, audiences (and maybe the industry itself) often struggle to accept you in roles where your looks are downplayed (without it seeming gimmicky). So even great actresses like Michelle Pfieffer, who were known for their beauty, were not allowed to age into meaty character roles that eschewed their looks.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 6, 2018 20:44:45 GMT
Given that Saoirse Ronan has 3 Oscar nominations at the age of 24, with maybe another on the way,she could be the one to surpass Meryl's total. I dunno...Ronan is giving me Winslet teas. Gets several nominations early and young, but then the love affair with the Academy cools down at some point, and talk of matching Streeps tally begins to look very unrealistic. Streep is an outlier. I don't think we'll see another actress rack up nominations like her again in our lifetimes. And if it ever happens again, I suspect this person will be American.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 6, 2018 21:09:20 GMT
They are very different, but I think they will rank really well overall in the long run. Blanchett who I voted for and highly too is the female DDL - so to speak, her name carries the burden of greatness. Kidman who I did not vote for but who I like, in particular her gutsiness, doesn't have that burden on her but is more identifiable and movie star-ish (a good thing). She's more likable and has some special, out of left field work (To Die For) that's among her best stuff ever. In am not a big believer in awards mattering especially for females, at all (ask Sally Field) but to be comparable to Streep you have to make a dent in Oscar nods - more so than for the men because she obliterates the field. Maybe get to the halfway point of her total and approach her for wins - a 3rd for Blanchett would be a big deal........or you have to start racking up TV wins - TV is the new theater in a way and Streep is major there too.........Kidman isn't that active in theater now - long gap, but she does it well, but is active in TV. The mix will help them because in the "Best actor across all 3 mediums" thread Streep's one of the few American actress that is a force in all 3 (not as much a theater force but a presence at least) - that can stand with her worldwide peers/competitors/the British . Kidman was last on stage 3 years ago in London in a play called Photograph 51, which I count as recently active. She was nominated for an Olivier Award (her second nomination) and won the Evening Standard Best Actress Award. I believe the only reason she didn't do a Broadway transfer and go for the Tony award was because her kids asked her not to. But going by interviews she sounds like she intends to do stage again reasonably soon. Kidman isn't prolific on stage, but she's certainly major on it and recently active. And major on TV after destroying an incredible field of actresses to win everything for Big Little Lies Also, I think you (and Stephen) underestimate how much Kidman has carried the burden of greatness at certain points in her career. When Rolling Stone point out that she could arguably be considered the best actor in the world for a 5 years period, it shows that she's held greatness in her palm. It's like Brando. Held up as the greatest actor around for a couple of years in the 50's. Slowly dismissed as an overrated has-been who was never that great in the first place and just a bloated movie star. Then makes a stunning 'comeback' and suddenly they are great again. It's a different sort of burden that great actors who are also movie stars that Brando and Kidman face, but arguably a more difficult one than the one DDL and Blanchett carry (they aren't movie stars, so no one scrutinises them much beyond the acting)
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Aug 6, 2018 21:19:33 GMT
I've seen half of Streep's nominated performances and only a few of her others and she's still comfortably #1 for me. So personally I don't see anyone snatching that crown.
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,537
Likes: 1,628
|
Post by Javi on Aug 7, 2018 17:48:47 GMT
No. Blanchett doesn't have the hunger and Kidman is (wrongly) perceived as not being talented enough.
Streep has won this contest and it has more to do with sheer stamina and cunning than with talent. The only thing working against her is her terrible filmography. Who will be watching The Iron Lady 50 years from now? All the male competitors for "best actor of all-time" status have starred in at least one legendary film. But it might not matter all that much.
The only way for any young actress to "beat" Streep would be to have a magical combination of natural talent, willpower and starring in one great film after another...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2018 18:03:39 GMT
Streep has won this contest and it has more to do with sheer stamina and cunning than with talent. Has she received Oscar nominations that she didn't deserve? Yes, absolutely. Almost every actor with three or more nominations has. But you all have got to give this "Streep has no talent" trope up. It's just ridiculous. And this comment in particular reads as sexist and churlish to me. "Cunning"? Really?
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,537
Likes: 1,628
|
Post by Javi on Aug 7, 2018 18:11:51 GMT
Streep has won this contest and it has more to do with sheer stamina and cunning than with talent. Has she received Oscar nominations that she didn't deserve? Yes, absolutely. Almost every actor with three or more nominations has. But you all have got to give this "Streep has no talent" trope up. It's just ridiculous. And this comment in particular reads as sexist and churlish to me. "Cunning"? Really? When did I say she has no talent? She has plenty of talent and knows how to use it and how to sell it. Nothing wrong about that. And I think she has been amazing several times (not 20 times though). She just doesn't have the exorbitant natural talent of the all-time greats. Anna Magnani she is not. This is my personal opinion...
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Aug 7, 2018 18:23:45 GMT
There's one thing about Kidman that no one had mentioned yet but I think is very important: after Big Little Lies and her banner 2017 year, Kidman's being embraced by the youth cinephiles in a way Blanchett has yet to achieve. The youngsters are getting to know Kidman's filmography and she's already hailed as one of the greatest, coolest women in business. She has that whole underdog/underrated narrative, the comeback narrative that the younger generation really responds to, and they embrace her and her bold choices.
I think Blanchett has tried to dialogue with that demographic with Ocean's 8 and Cinderella and, even as those movies were well-recieved, she hasn't got the same level of embrace. Ironically, it's Carol that the early-20s, mainly LGBT cinephiles respond to and works as an entry to Blanchett's filmography.
Both of them are magnificent actresses who already influence thousands of younger actresses, but I think Kidman's esoteric, underdog narrative works way better with the Millennials than Blanchett's DDL-esque elegance. Her cult status amongst teenagers and young adults shouldn't be left out of this conversation.
Other than that, I think both Blanchett and Kidman still have one more Oscar win in them. Kidman could win her 2nd soon, but I guess we still have to wait at least 5 more years to see Blanchett winning again.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 7, 2018 19:18:22 GMT
There's one thing about Kidman that no one had mentioned yet but I think is very important: after Big Little Lies and her banner 2017 year, Kidman's being embraced by the youth cinephiles in a way Blanchett has yet to achieve. The youngsters are getting to know Kidman's filmography and she's already hailed as one of the greatest, coolest women in business. She has that whole underdog/underrated narrative, the comeback narrative that the younger generation really responds to, and they embrace her and her bold choices. I think Blanchett has tried to dialogue with that demographic with Ocean's 8 and Cinderella and, even as those movies were well-recieved, she hasn't got the same level of embrace. Ironically, it's Carol that the early-20s, mainly LGBT cinephiles respond to and works as an entry to Blanchett's filmography. Both of them are magnificent actresses who already influence thousands of younger actresses, but I think Kidman's esoteric, underdog narrative works way better with the Millennials than Blanchett's DDL-esque elegance. Her cult status amongst teenagers and young adults shouldn't be left out of this conversation. Other than that, I think both Blanchett and Kidman still have one more Oscar win in them. Kidman could win her 2nd soon, but I guess we still have to wait at least 5 more years to see Blanchett winning again. Great analysis. I think so many people are missing these little details, especially as it's almost happening in real time. Blanchett may have had that DDL-esque reverence in some circles (not all), but what Kidman has done in the last 2 years or so has not only evened up things considerably, but as you said, given her an edge with younger millennial cinephiles. I saw a Twitter thread this week started by Lindsay Romain (a critic/writer for Vulture and Nerdist) where she stated Kidman was better than Blanchett, and about 90% of people responding agreed. Younger fans and critics have almost 'rediscovered' Kidman now, and her body of work carries more appeal to them. Arguably more appeal than Blanchett's work I agree that this commercial approach Blanchett is taking at the moment (Thor and Oceans 8) isn't raising her stock with millenials in probably the way she thought. She needs to find something of substance that really connects for that. But nobody can predict a Big Little Lies. I think even Amy Adams is trying to do something similar in Sharp Objects, but while it's gotten good reviews, it doesn't appear to be have pierced the zeitgeist like BLL did.
|
|
wattsnew
Full Member
Posts: 712
Likes: 347
|
Post by wattsnew on Aug 7, 2018 20:00:42 GMT
Nicole Kidman won't. As Lauren Bacall said, she's no legend!
|
|