|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 8, 2018 14:38:52 GMT
I have a sneaking suspicion Kidman might win her 2nd Best Actress Oscar next year for Destroyer (if it goes over well at festivals. Looks like a very baity and transformational role).
If that happens, surely she's young enough and respected enough to challenge for a 3rd as well? I know all that is hypothetical, as she needs to bag her 2nd first.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Aug 8, 2018 15:19:43 GMT
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. I disagree that she has a terrible filmography, in fact, while she may not have a film commonly regarded as an all-time great that she head-lined (she does have The Deer Hunter, supporting as she was), she has a more consistently decent filmography than most of her "male competitors for "best actor of all-time"".
She may not have a hugely memorable filmography overall, but it's far from terrible. Sure, it has some stinkers, but you could count them comfortably on one had. Can Pacino, De Niro and Hoffman say that anymore. I also think people will be watching some of her more recent films in years to come. The Devil Wears Prada, Mamma Mia and Into The Woods will do the rounds on TV for years. I think she has a good 10 films from her career so far that'll be long remembered. |
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,537 
Likes: 1,628
|
Post by Javi on Aug 8, 2018 16:32:03 GMT
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. I disagree that she has a terrible filmography, in fact, while she may not have a film commonly regarded as an all-time great that she head-lined (she does have The Deer Hunter, supporting as she was), she has a more consistently decent filmography than most of her "male competitors for "best actor of all-time"".
She may not have a hugely memorable filmography overall, but it's far from terrible. Sure, it has some stinkers, but you could count them comfortably on one had. Can Pacino, De Niro and Hoffman say that anymore. I also think people will be watching some of her more recent films in years to come. The Devil Wears Prada, Mamma Mia and Into The Woods will do the rounds on TV for years. I think she has a good 10 films from her career so far that'll be long remembered. She had small roles in two bonafide classics (The Deer Hunter & Manhattan) and has led some good films of her own. But there's a lot of stuff that's only watchable because of her contribution, and some of the recent post-Prada stuff is just bad. People generally remember the highs, not the lows. Brando was heavily criticized in the 60s but barely anyone cares about that anymore. It's his great 50s period and his early 70s reinassance that people talk about. And leading even one legendary film makes you immortal (just ask Falconetti!) So yes, I think the high points of a filmography matter the most. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 8, 2018 16:57:15 GMT
I disagree that she has a terrible filmography, in fact, while she may not have a film commonly regarded as an all-time great that she head-lined (she does have The Deer Hunter, supporting as she was), she has a more consistently decent filmography than most of her "male competitors for "best actor of all-time"".
She may not have a hugely memorable filmography overall, but it's far from terrible. Sure, it has some stinkers, but you could count them comfortably on one had. Can Pacino, De Niro and Hoffman say that anymore. I also think people will be watching some of her more recent films in years to come. The Devil Wears Prada, Mamma Mia and Into The Woods will do the rounds on TV for years. I think she has a good 10 films from her career so far that'll be long remembered. She had small roles in two bonafide classics (The Deer Hunter & Manhattan) and has led some good films of her own. But there's a lot of stuff that's only watchable because of her contribution, and some of the recent post-Prada stuff is just bad. People generally remember the highs, not the lows. Brando was heavily criticized in the 60s but barely anyone cares about that anymore. It's his great 50s period and his early 70s reinassance that people talk about. And leading even one legendary film makes you immortal (just ask Falconetti!) So yes, I think the high points of a filmography matter the most. I see you points. I mean Vivien Leigh was a great actress, but most people basically only know her for headlining two legendary movies (Gone With The Wind and Streetcar Named Desire). But honestly, I think it's not always the case. Montgomery Clift is an actor (some) cinephiles still like to claim as GOAT level, yet having a strong little filmography filled with supposed classics and masterpieces hasn't stopped him from becoming a minor figure to general audiences today. If leading classics was everything, Monty would not be so relatively obscure to general audiences today. Gena Rowlands, Sissy Spacek, Faye Dunaway and Ellen Burstyn are all great American actresses who have all headlined at least one film hailed as an all-time "masterpiece", but can you see any of them being regarded as highly as Streep by future generations? Even being part of cinephile classics hasn't prevented many people from sort of forgetting about them in this generation. For Streep, the iconic nature of her career and herself is a huge equalizer. She's basically, because of her Academy record, become synonymous with the term "great actress". People in future generations will check out her average movies just because they hear she is in it. And sometimes, "popular" films do more for an actors legacy than cinephile-stamped "masterpieces". Scarface, a film reviled by critics on release (and only reassesed when they realised it endured with audiences), is arguably equally responsible for Al Pacino's standing today as the "masterpiece" Godfather films. Who knows how many people will still be watching stuff like Mama Mia and The Devil Wears Prada and treating them as classics (like Pretty Woman, Dirty Dancing and Top Gun, which aren't viewed as masterpieces, but are seen as classics and endure) |
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Aug 8, 2018 18:21:57 GMT
Gena Rowlands, Sissy Spacek, Faye Dunaway and Ellen Burstyn are all great American actresses who have all headlined at least one film hailed as an all-time "masterpiece", but can you see any of them being regarded as highly as Streep by future generations? Even being part of cinephile classics hasn't prevented many people from sort of forgetting about them in this generation. Meryl Streep's just got a better PR, if anything. I find all these talks about Nicole Kidman pretty overblown. |
|
futuretrunks
Based
Posts: 3,230
Likes: 1,436
Member is Online
|
Post by futuretrunks on Oct 31, 2019 21:54:23 GMT
No chance. I have so many issues with her, but Streep's reputation lies heavily on her technical facility, which is indeed freakish and only really matched/exceeded in certain ways in current actors by Oldman giving a shit or Andrea Riseborough (or Swinton). Kidman and Blanchett would need Denzel-level reps with the general public to overcome that, and they're nowhere near that. The two actresses who had the potential to surpass Streep were Saoirse Ronan and Evan Rachel Wood; but the former seems frankly less talented than she was as a kid (despite still being good and racking up noms), and ERW doesn't get great mainstream roles (despite being beautiful and technically superb). Winslet is a better actor than Streep IMO, far more elemental while being technically sound to a high level, but can't be trusted to manage her career well enough to show it definitively to sway mass opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by evilbliss on Oct 31, 2019 23:10:31 GMT
Just curious - why are you not including Kate Winslet in this discussion? I was gonna write the EXACT SAME THING! |
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Nov 1, 2019 21:27:29 GMT
1. Meryl Streep is routinely called the greatest actress of all time
2. Meryl Streep has 21 Oscar nominations, 15 BAFTA nominations, 29 Globe nominations, and 16 major critics wins, among many others, showing wide support across different countries and awards bodies.
3. Meryl Streep has been in 3 Best Picture winners, which ensures a shelf-life even if people should forget that she was once called the greatest actress of all time.
Cate Blanchett and Nicole Kidman have none of those things, and will probably never have any of those things. At least for Blanchett, you can make the argument that she's the most respected and acclaimed actress of her generation, even if she will never realistically compete against Streep in esteem. Nicole Kidman is not even the 2nd most acclaimed actress of her generation. Kate Winslet is (assuming we consider them to be the same generation). There is virtually nothing Nicole Kidman has or will ever have over Meryl Streep. You might as well argue for Charlize Theron being the GOAT.
Random quotes and articles from nobodies (that don't even call Nicole Kidman the GOAT) won't change the fact that, by overwhelming consensus, Streep >>> Blanchett > Winslet > Kidman. And no, let's not give Kidman phantom achievements and delusional longevity by comparing her to Katharine Hepburn and assuming Kidman will have the same trajectory when there is no reason to believe that will be the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Nov 6, 2019 16:12:04 GMT
Kidman will never be Streep.
Blanchett could be. Probably not as bright. but maybe even greater than Streep.-
I'm divisive on Kidman, with the years, I'm more kind with her.
I guess her greatest talen is her capacity of learn quickly about her own failures, and
That's why she reinvented herself several times.
She has more lives than a cat.-
But also is a pretty talented actress, she knows how to autopromote herself and how to sell her proyects- She is a cameleon in autopromotion. She started in the 90s first as an Aussie new start, then as Tom Cruise's sweetheart, then a too much narcisitic and ambitious diva, then as a poor dumped divorcee, then as a Huge Movie Star, then as loyal wife and tender mother, then as a political conciliator and now as a succesful talented actress in her 50s.
She was nominated several time for an Oscar, most of them underserved, but she knew how to campaigne in a weak year. Most of her nominations were in a very weak year.-
Right know she still harmed by the Weinstein Scandal. OK working in TV and in Aquaman save her career, but she is not more The Academy Darling. She isn't Meryl Streep.-
I think she will earn 3 more OScar nominations as an actress in her life.-
|
|
