|
Post by commond on Apr 9, 2022 6:47:18 GMT -5
There are very few leading actors in Hollywood who didn't play the same character over and over. The average filmgoer doesn't want to see their favorite actor go against type, and I'm 99% sure the actors' agents don't think it's a good idea. I have nothing against Hanks as an actor. He may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I don't think there's an argument for him being a poor actor. People may hate Forrest Gump, but I don't see how you can argue that it was a poor performance by Hanks. I wonder how people would feel about Jimmy Stewart if he came along today. Or Frank Capra.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2022 6:51:27 GMT -5
There are very few leading actors in Hollywood who didn't play the same character over and over. The average filmgoer doesn't want to see their favorite actor go against type, and I'm 99% sure the actors' agents don't think it's a good idea. I have nothing against Hanks as an actor. He may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I don't think there's an argument for him being a poor actor. People may hate Forest Gump, but I don't see how you can argue that it was a poor performance by Hanks. I wonder how people would feel about Jimmy Stewart if he came along today. Or Frank Capra. I’ve had this debate at times. I do rate highly actors who can play different roles, immersing themselves in it. One of my all-time favourites is Peter Cushing. Whether he’s the heroic Van Helsing or the villainous Doctor Frankenstein, it’s easy to immerse yourself in whatever he is playing. But, and I don’t consider this a bad thing, there are some that play the same character again and again. Charles Bronson seemed to be one. Cary Grant, at least what I’ve seen of his, is another. I guess you go with what works for you.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2022 7:04:21 GMT -5
This reminds me a bit of an interview with George Clooney one time when he said by making the more commercial films like Ocean's Eleven, it allowed him to make things like O Brother, Where Art Thou?, a direct nod to what pays the bills (for both the studios and the actors) versus what he considered more creative outlets for his acting.
|
|
|
Post by commond on Apr 9, 2022 7:15:57 GMT -5
There are very few leading actors in Hollywood who didn't play the same character over and over. The average filmgoer doesn't want to see their favorite actor go against type, and I'm 99% sure the actors' agents don't think it's a good idea. I have nothing against Hanks as an actor. He may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I don't think there's an argument for him being a poor actor. People may hate Forest Gump, but I don't see how you can argue that it was a poor performance by Hanks. I wonder how people would feel about Jimmy Stewart if he came along today. Or Frank Capra. I’ve had this debate at times. I do rate highly actors who can play different roles, immersing themselves in it. One of my all-time favourites is Peter Cushing. Whether he’s the heroic Van Helsing or the villainous Doctor Frankenstein, it’s easy to immerse yourself in whatever he is playing. But, and I don’t consider this a bad thing, there are some that play the same character again and again. Charles Bronson seemed to be one. Cary Grant, at least what I’ve seen of his, is another. I guess you go with what works for you. For sure. I LOVE Burt Lancaster. When I watch a Burt Lancaster film, I want to see Burt Lancaster doing Burt Lancaster things. The same for Cagney, Bogie, Jimmy Stewart, and numerous other stars. It's part and parcel of going to the movies. Even with method guys, once they get big, there's still a sense that you're watching an iconic Hollywood star no matter how good an actor they are. Some of the stage and theater actors carry themselves a little differently, but at the end of the day, it's a factory.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Apr 9, 2022 8:23:23 GMT -5
(...) So back on the consensus topic, I wouldn't suggest the Princess Bride is universally loved, but all I'm saying is I've heard MANY a lady of a certain age declare their adoration for this film. (...) Not just ladies, man.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2022 8:30:19 GMT -5
(...) So back on the consensus topic, I wouldn't suggest the Princess Bride is universally loved, but all I'm saying is I've heard MANY a lady of a certain age declare their adoration for this film. (...) Not just ladies, man. Well, if I'm totally honest, at least for me, it's kind of like this...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2022 9:55:00 GMT -5
(...) So back on the consensus topic, I wouldn't suggest the Princess Bride is universally loved, but all I'm saying is I've heard MANY a lady of a certain age declare their adoration for this film. (...) Not just ladies, man. Have Fun Storming the Castle... -M
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 9, 2022 9:59:15 GMT -5
There are very few leading actors in Hollywood who didn't play the same character over and over. The average filmgoer doesn't want to see their favorite actor go against type, and I'm 99% sure the actors' agents don't think it's a good idea. I have nothing against Hanks as an actor. He may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I don't think there's an argument for him being a poor actor. People may hate Forest Gump, but I don't see how you can argue that it was a poor performance by Hanks. I wonder how people would feel about Jimmy Stewart if he came along today. Or Frank Capra. Gump was a one-note part. No nuance, no complexity. Many parts are like that. Hoffman's role in "Rain Man" is another example. Some audiences love those kinds of characters. Many don't. Your point about actors playing the same character over and over is sometimes correct. However, it's not always correct about the particualr actors you mentioned in a later post. Bogey in "African Queen" is not the Bogey of "Black Legion" or "The Harder They Fall." Cagney in "Taxi" is not the Cagney of "White Heat" or "Man of a Thousand Faces." Stewart in "You Can't Take It With You" is a far cry from the Stewart of "It's a Wonderful Life," "The Naked Spur" or "Vertigo." And it's too bad that modern audiences don't know more about directors like Capra, who seem to be characterized (unfairly) as paint-by-the-numbers, formulaic studio drones.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 9, 2022 11:53:41 GMT -5
Hanks in Philadelphia was not Hanks in Cast Away or Sleepless in Seattle or The Post or Finch or.....
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Apr 9, 2022 12:32:19 GMT -5
(...) So back on the consensus topic, I wouldn't suggest the Princess Bride is universally loved, but all I'm saying is I've heard MANY a lady of a certain age declare their adoration for this film. (...) Not just ladies, man. My wife introduced to me to this movie and despite the overwhelming love for it I find the only interesting character to be Shawn Wallace (though Andre the Giant was fun) and dont get the love for it. But I understand why women of a certain, probably older age, might like it. As chivalry and manners in regards to how a man should treat a woman are becoming a thing of the past due “progressive” movements.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Apr 9, 2022 13:12:02 GMT -5
There are very few leading actors in Hollywood who didn't play the same character over and over. The average filmgoer doesn't want to see their favorite actor go against type, and I'm 99% sure the actors' agents don't think it's a good idea. I have nothing against Hanks as an actor. He may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I don't think there's an argument for him being a poor actor. People may hate Forest Gump, but I don't see how you can argue that it was a poor performance by Hanks. I wonder how people would feel about Jimmy Stewart if he came along today. Or Frank Capra. I’ve had this debate at times. I do rate highly actors who can play different roles, immersing themselves in it. One of my all-time favourites is Peter Cushing. Whether he’s the heroic Van Helsing or the villainous Doctor Frankenstein, it’s easy to immerse yourself in whatever he is playing. Peter Cushing is my favourite actor of all time and yet interestingly, I don't think I'd rate him as definitive in any of the parts he played. He's incredible as Holmes (though I'd argue that Basil Rathbone is Holmes), Frankenstein (Clive), Van Helsing (Van Sloan), and while I couldn't quite warm up to his Doctor Who (Tom Baker) when I recently rewatched those two films, I did love him when I saw him as a kid which is what counts. But put any of those other actors in the other parts he played so well and I suspect that Cushing would come out ahead (although now that I think of it, I'd have loved to have seen what Basil Rathbone could have done with the part of Doctor Who).
|
|
|
Post by commond on Apr 9, 2022 19:18:13 GMT -5
There are very few leading actors in Hollywood who didn't play the same character over and over. The average filmgoer doesn't want to see their favorite actor go against type, and I'm 99% sure the actors' agents don't think it's a good idea. I have nothing against Hanks as an actor. He may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I don't think there's an argument for him being a poor actor. People may hate Forest Gump, but I don't see how you can argue that it was a poor performance by Hanks. I wonder how people would feel about Jimmy Stewart if he came along today. Or Frank Capra. Gump was a one-note part. No nuance, no complexity. Many parts are like that. Hoffman's role in "Rain Man" is another example. Some audiences love those kinds of characters. Many don't. Your point about actors playing the same character over and over is sometimes correct. However, it's not always correct about the particualr actors you mentioned in a later post. Bogey in "African Queen" is not the Bogey of "Black Legion" or "The Harder They Fall." Cagney in "Taxi" is not the Cagney of "White Heat" or "man of a Thousand Faces." Stewart in "You Can't Take It With You" is a far cry from the Stewart of "It's a Wonderful Life," "The Naked Spur" or "Vertigo." And it's too bad that modern audiences don't know more about directors like Capra, who seem to be characterized (unfairly) as paint-by-the-numbers, formulaic studio drones. I think there's more range to the Forrest Gump part than you're giving Hanks credit for. An actor's job is to bring a character to life, and Hanks did that to the extent that nearly 30 years later, people still remember the character. It's not a case of, "Oh, remember that film that Tom Hanks was in that one time," you can actually say the name Forrest Gump and people know who you're taking about. I don't think for a second that it was an easy part to play, and there's every chance the film would have bombed without that strong central performance from Hanks. And it was a performance that was lauded at the time, hence why he took home the Academy Award. I'm not saying that Bogart, Cagney and Stewart weren't great actors. They were. But there's a reason why every impressionist in show business does a Bogey, Cagney, and Stewart. Last night, I was watching Dana Carvey do impressions. He actually worked on the last film that Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas did together, and he mentioned that one of the reasons why it's easy to do Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas impressions is because they actually talked like that in real life. My point about Capra is that people don't seem to value sentimentality anymore. Forrest Gump is an extremely sentimental movie much like Capra's work. Capra's films were obviously a product of their time coming out of the Great Depression and the war, but I do wonder how they would resonate with modern audiences. There's a possibility that the general public isn't as jaded as people suspect. After all, the general public's taste do lean toward more middle of the road entertainment than the things we enjoy.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,051
|
Post by Confessor on Apr 9, 2022 20:36:22 GMT -5
My wife and I were up late last night watching movies, and she wanted to watch The Princess Bride. It's one of her old favorites so I've seen it with her many times (much as she's watched my old Star Wars films a million times). Suddenly it clicked for me...the actress who played Jenny in Forrest Gump, SHE's the Princess Bride. It was one of those "how did I never make that connection?" moments, total mindbomb. So back on the consensus topic, I wouldn't suggest the Princess Bride is universally loved, but all I'm saying is I've heard MANY a lady of a certain age declare their adoration for this film. And in my case, a happy marriage means general consensus on it as well. I love The Princess Bride. It's such a fun film, and actually very clever and self-aware while seemingly playing dumb.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 11, 2022 9:36:49 GMT -5
I think there's more range to the Forrest Gump part than you're giving Hanks credit for. An actor's job is to bring a character to life, and Hanks did that to the extent that nearly 30 years later, people still remember the character. It's not a case of, "Oh, remember that film that Tom Hanks was in that one time," you can actually say the name Forrest Gump and people know who you're taking about. I don't think for a second that it was an easy part to play, and there's every chance the film would have bombed without that strong central performance from Hanks. And it was a performance that was lauded at the time, hence why he took home the Academy Award. I'm not saying that Bogart, Cagney and Stewart weren't great actors. They were. But there's a reason why every impressionist in show business does a Bogey, Cagney, and Stewart. Last night, I was watching Dana Carvey do impressions. He actually worked on the last film that Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas did together, and he mentioned that one of the reasons why it's easy to do Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas impressions is because they actually talked like that in real life. My point about Capra is that people don't seem to value sentimentality anymore. Forrest Gump is an extremely sentimental movie much like Capra's work. Capra's films were obviously a product of their time coming out of the Great Depression and the war, but I do wonder how they would resonate with modern audiences. There's a possibility that the general public isn't as jaded as people suspect. After all, the general public's taste do lean toward more middle of the road entertainment than the things we enjoy. We'll have to disagree re the range or depth of the Gump character. Gump is Adam before the fall, an unquestioning simpleton whose life is uncomplicated and uninteresting. No event, no matter how traumatic, shapes him, changes him, cuses him doubt, or awakens him to the fact that there's more to the world around us than what we see on its surface. He remains the same tabula rasa throughout the film. People may remember the vapid line about chocolates, but peple also remeber John McLain saying "Yippee ki-yay" and Yoda saying "There is no try, etc." And winning an Academy Award does not always, even usually, equate with having given the so-called best performance of the year. But I don't dislike Hanks as an actor, though I think he stays well within his lane, never really testing himself or palying against type. He has become his image. The actors you mention all played against type constantly, but they don't always get credit for it. As for Hanks as Gump, I just don't think the character itself is particularly demanding to play, and Hanks brings no insight to it, which may be more the fault of the script and direction, but which more capable actors often can rise above. Impressionists distill, they caricature. (They give us their "impressions" of people, after all.) Cagney never said "You dirty rat," but it became his signature line thanks to impressionists.. I love impressionists myself, but no impressionist does more than give us a surface reading of his or her targets, wehich is fine. I f they did more than that, they could be actors themselves. Rich Little may have done a serviceable Bogey, but would we want to see him in a remake of "The Maltese Falcon"? And there's certaily a large segment of today's audience that can't get enough sentimentality, else there would be no Hallmark Channel Christmas (and other holiday-themed) movies, all ten thousand of them. They seem quite happy to check their reason at the door, not just for the duration of these movies, but for much of their lives. It is that same lack of balance between emotion and rational thought and the comfort found in not having one's protective pre-conceptions challenged that has in large part contributed to the success of jukebox musicals, Disney-themed musicals and musical versions of other familiar properties. I wish the public were more jaded; our governemt, our economy and our entertainment would all benefit from that. And while Capra often relies on sentimentality to reel in an audience, we forget that he quite often upends it to show us just how fragile a belief in it is. It's most obvious in the eerily prescient "Meet John Doe" (1941) and the frightening film noir embedded at the end of "It's A Wonderful Life." His tricky balancing act between sentiment and cynicism is reflected in the abrupt ending to "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and his well noted trouble trying to film a satisfactory ending to "Doe." He never liked the ending he used, but after several were filmed and tested, he had to go with something to get the movie out. It's always rung hollow to me, especially after the cynicism that runs through the film, a bracing tonic to all the Americana on dispaly, and embodied most obviously by the Colonel, beautifully played by Walter Brennan. His absence from the final scenes is noticeable and regrettable, IYAM.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Apr 11, 2022 12:00:19 GMT -5
I think there's more range to the Forrest Gump part than you're giving Hanks credit for. An actor's job is to bring a character to life, and Hanks did that to the extent that nearly 30 years later, people still remember the character. It's not a case of, "Oh, remember that film that Tom Hanks was in that one time," you can actually say the name Forrest Gump and people know who you're taking about. I don't think for a second that it was an easy part to play, and there's every chance the film would have bombed without that strong central performance from Hanks. And it was a performance that was lauded at the time, hence why he took home the Academy Award. I'm not saying that Bogart, Cagney and Stewart weren't great actors. They were. But there's a reason why every impressionist in show business does a Bogey, Cagney, and Stewart. Last night, I was watching Dana Carvey do impressions. He actually worked on the last film that Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas did together, and he mentioned that one of the reasons why it's easy to do Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas impressions is because they actually talked like that in real life. My point about Capra is that people don't seem to value sentimentality anymore. Forrest Gump is an extremely sentimental movie much like Capra's work. Capra's films were obviously a product of their time coming out of the Great Depression and the war, but I do wonder how they would resonate with modern audiences. There's a possibility that the general public isn't as jaded as people suspect. After all, the general public's taste do lean toward more middle of the road entertainment than the things we enjoy. We'll have to disagree re the range or depth of the Gump character. Gump is Adam before the fall, an unquestioning simpleton whose life is uncomplicated and uninteresting. No event, no matter how traumatic, shapes him, changes him, cuses him doubt, or awakens him to the fact that there's more to the world around us than what we see on its surface. He remains the same tabula rasa throughout the film. People may remember the vapid line about chocolates, but peple also remeber John McLain saying "Yippee ki-yay" and Yoda saying "There is no try, etc." And winning an Academy Award does not always, even usually, equate with having given the so-called best performance of the year. But I don't dislike Hanks as an actor, though I think he stays well within his lane, never really testing himself or palying against type. He has become his image. The actors you mention all played against type constantly, but they don't always get credit for it. As for Hanks as Gump, I just don't think the character itself is particularly demanding to play, and Hanks brings no insight to it, which may be more the fault of the script and direction, but which more capable actors often can rise above. Impressionists distill, they caricature. (They give us their "impressions" of people, after all.) Cagney never said "You dirty rat," but it became his signature line thanks to impressionists.. I love impressionists myself, but no impressionist does more than give us a surface reading of his or her targets, wehich is fine. I f they did more than that, they could be actors themselves. Rich Little may have done a serviceable Bogey, but would we want to see him in a remake of "The Maltese Falcon"? And there's certaily a large segment of today's audience that can't get enough sentimentality, else there would be no Hallmark Channel Christmas (and other holiday-themed) movies, all ten thousand of them. They seem quite happy to check their reason at the door, not just for the duration of these movies, but for much of their lives. It is that same lack of balance between emotion and rational thought and the comfort found in not having one's protective pre-conceptions challenged that has in large part contributed to the success of jukebox musicals, Disney-themed musicals and musical versions of other familiar properties. I wish the public were more jaded; our governemt, our economy and our entertainment would all benefit from that. And while Capra often relies on sentimentality to reel in an audience, we forget that he quite often upends it to show us just how fragile a belief in it is. It's most obvious in the eerily prescient "Meet John Doe" (1941) and the frightening film noir embedded at the end of "It's A Wonderful Life." His tricky balancing act between sentiment and cynicism is reflected in the abrupt ending to "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and his well noted trouble trying to film a satisfactory ending to "Doe." He never liked the ending he used, but after several were filmed and tested, he had to go with something to get the movie out. It's always rung hollow to me, especially after the cynicism that runs through the film, a bracing tonic to all the Americana on dispaly, and embodied most obviously by the Colonel, beautifully played by Walter Brennan. His absence from the final scenes is noticeable and regrettable, IYAM. Yeah, I've gotta disagree about Gump. Hanks plays him with a deceptively limited range of emotions, but within that limited range, there is actually a greater range than it appears. He gets angry, and jealous. He expresses love, fear, loyalty. He shows an incredible bond with his son. The emotions Hanks shows are there... they are subtle, but are there. In fact, I think the subtlety of his character's emotions are incredibly nuanced and some of his best acting.
|
|