|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.1.163.157
In Reply to: RE: Okay, I just don't like Maggie! posted by jamesgarvin on January 10, 2008 at 14:46:33
There are leading or character actresses in your world. No grey areas? So, how many lead roles does an actress need to have before she changes categories? Is the Pacino character in Godfather the same personality type as the cop in "Serpico" or the cop in "Cruising?"
How about DeNiro in Godfather, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Heat? Same guy, different roles?
I'd say not.
My point about your comparing Hepburn to MG was that Hepburn's supreme talent overcame her modest looks: MG is homely so she must stand on talent alone which, in my opinion, is shaky.
Bette Davis, I always thought, immensely was attractive. I can't think of a more animal sexuality than she projected in "Of Human Bondage." You may wish to note how beautifully she filled that tight dress, too. The young Bette had a divine figure, an hourglass.
I don't have a spare two or three hours to refute the rest; they're the same argumentative stuff like what I just eviscerated.
Follow Ups:
Eviscerated? Hard to do when most of your responses never respond to anything. But at least in this post you gave it ol' college try. Now if you would only respond to those statements you make that recite incorrect facts, and then run for cover when called to the carpet. All in good time, I guess.
"How about DeNiro in Godfather, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Heat? Same guy, different roles? I'd say not."
You mean different guy, or same role? Frankly, my recollection of DeNiro in Godfather is vague, at best. Taxi Driver and Raging Bull were clearly different roles, as was his performance in each them. Ditto Heat. I'd call Deniro a character actor - he creates a character for most of his roles, at least the better written roles. I'd venture to guess that he considers himself to be a character, not a lead, actor. Ditto for Pacino, though I find his performances for the last ten to fifteen years to be more the same than different.
"My point about your comparing Hepburn to MG was that Hepburn's supreme talent overcame her modest looks: MG is homely so she must stand on talent alone which, in my opinion, is shaky."
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are people who do not consider her "homely." Your writings on this subject clearly demontrate that for an actress, physical appearance is the key into the room, and, if you don't have the key, well, you better have the talent to compensate. If that does not qualify you as a male chavinist, I am not sure what does. At least wear the mantle with pride.
"Bette Davis, I always thought, immensely was attractive."
Fine. I don't. Though I have written here before that she is my favorite actress, it matters to me not a wit whether she is attractive. The point is not whether you think she is attractive, but whether you can see the woman beyond her physical appearance.
And in your response below to not being able to fool the camera, I suggest you search out some candid photos of those beautiful Hollywood starlets. The cameras don't fool people. The make-up artists do.
actor is the protagonist, almost always. That would be Robert.
Al P.
Jack.
The three most famous of their times.
Character actor?
Hahahaha.
You'd do better if you'd once admit your errors.
With that beginning, I quit reading.
Arguing and discussing are different. The latter assumes a degree of honesty or at least auto-criticism.
...that some one would likely know better than I.
How often was Edith Head responsible for the curves we attribute to nature?
Did she pad, etc?
in the Davis role I mention, the tightness of the dress, and it's ultra thin fabric, leave no room for padding and precious little to the imagination, as well.
Anyhow, there is just so much one can do with "padding." It's tough to fool the camera.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: