 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.237.127.253
and how they tried to cope with his long time disappearance.
Much is made of the young lead actress, her performance and her looks: both I found wanting.
Similarly, the film's cinematography often is singled out for its "Eisenstein-like" effects: with the exception of one scene, I found them distracting from the realism of the story.
I very much liked the film but I did IN SPITE of these things not because of them.
In centering the film not upon the soldier but rather upon the impact his absence has upon his family, the director and writer chose brilliantly: we already countless times have seen the brutality and savagery of battle portrayed on the big screen: it really is incapable of convincingly conveying it.
Especially brilliant is the actor who portrayed the patriarch: he has the passion and skill of a Spencer Tracy: his performance alone is worth your time.
This film easily rates as one of the most powerful anti-war films ever made but it is more than that: it also has much to say about patriotism, romantic love and its fickleness, and the power of family.
Follow Ups:
If this is the man you are talking about, he is one of very famous and deservingly so, Russian actors. His body of work was amazing.
A VERY human actor.
A Balld of a Soldier is a must too.
because it's obvious acting alone cannot portray such strength and humanity.
-
- http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=films&n=28696&highlight=the+cranes+are+flying&r=&session= (Open in New Window)
and his skills( one of my favorites). Are there any current actors you would place in his style of acting today?.
a
nt.
airs, kindness without softness, and leadership without bombast... no. I've been wracking my brains and I can't think of any current American actor that even comes close to Spencer, especially when you figure in his amazing comic talents, as well.
He was unique.
A singular talent which doesn't even arrive once in a generation.
Did I mention effortless?
..your response. I've been pondering, as well,
One of my favorite roles played by Tracy is the detective in It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. How adept he was in not allowing the powerful and compelling zaniness to overwhelm him.
He has much to show the new generations of film lovers
most satisfying "lesser" roles, for sure.
A well-exercised sense of humor, to not take himself or others too seriously... he conveyed this human-ness more than just about any other actor.
Of course, I can't think of another actor like Gary Cooper, Cary Grant, Robert Mitchum, or Bogey, either.
Nowadays, we like our leading men to be boyish, not too strong a personality. Don't want to offend anyone so "vanilla" is in.
Johnny Depp.
Brad Pitt.
Just boys....
Maybe part of the problem today is the movie corporations today are targeting a teenage audience ,where in the past it was a more adult one.
I think people tend to confuse "leading men" and "character actors." I believe it was Philip Seymour Hoffman who described a leading actor as an actor who basically played the same role over and over, whereas a character actor as an actor who plays different characters in different films.
Johnny Depp, who I think is a great actor, is a character actor, not a leading man. Compare him with Bogart, Cooper, Stewart, et al. They basically played the same type of character over and over. Sure, they changed scenery, wore different clothes, but they played essentially the same people over and over. Ever see Bogart, Cooper, Stewart play the range of different personalities that Depp has played over the course of his still developing career?
Leading men today? Samuel Jackson, Denzel Washington, Mel Gibson, Cruise, Arnold (when he made films). Put Bogart or Cooper alone in a room with Jackson, I venture to guess that Bogart or Cooper ain't walking out. Maybe The Duke would.
Which brings me to another story I watched Kirk Douglas tell. He was at a party with John Wayne, and Wayne approached him while Douglas was on a balcony having a drink. Douglas had just made a film, I do not recall which one, in which his character cried during the course of the film. Wayne told him that actors like them cannot cry or show such sissy emotion on film. Think that "toughness" made Duke a better actor?
You say Depp is a character actor and then compare him to guys you say are leads.
My point wasn't about characterizations of different acting categories but, rather, that many of today's leading actors are boyish.
As an aside, I wouldn't characterize Jackson as a lead actor. He hasn't had a lead in any major film but rather shared it in many, including his most famous roles which both were in Tarantino films.
Whom would you cast in any role Mitchum, Bogart, Cooper, Stewart, or Gable played?
These actors all developed powerful screen personas, true... that's why they were so successful.
I can't think of any actors now working that have that "honesty." Mostly, it's ironic toughness now, like Clooney plays. Or that Pacino or DeNiro have been reduced to portraying.
Sometime ago, the anti-hero came of age and nothing has replaced him. Spacey, Irons, and Malkovich are all wonderful actors but each is... a touch effeminate.
As far as who could kick who's ass... that's how you rank greatness? Hell, Ahhnie could probably have bent Wayne in two.
"You say Depp is a character actor and then compare him to guys you say are leads."
I compared them to illustrate the differences. Depp plays many difference characters, Stewart and Gable, basically the same. In reviewing Gable's filmography, I have seen 'It Happened One Night', 'Mutiny', 'San Francisco', 'Test Pilot', 'Gone with the Wind', and 'Run Silent, Run Deep'. There are variations, but the variations are basically off the same character. The same would apply to Steward, Bogart, et al. Depp certainly has demonstrated more range in his roles.
"As an aside, I wouldn't characterize Jackson as a lead actor. He hasn't had a lead in any major film but rather shared it in many, including his most famous roles which both were in Tarantino films."
Philip Seymore Hoffman defined a "lead actor" as one who plays essentially the same character in every film. According to his definition, which, if I must define the term, I think of him as something of an authority on the subject, it has nothing to do with the size of the role, or whether there is another lead. There is no rule, that I am aware of, which mandates that there be only one "lead actor" in a film, though there may be a "lead role", which I think are different.
You must also consider that the system was very different when those actors were making films. Actors were contracted to the studios, and the studios controlled them, and the films they appeared in. Popular actors were cash cows for studios. So, for example, the studio to which Bogart was contracted carefully chose his co-actors so as to keep Bogart on the screen, and the top billing. They did not want another actor taking the attention from Bogart. Which is why you rarely saw two high powered actors in the same film.
With the studio systems gone, actors are free agents, develope their own projects, and the result is that many films will often star more than one lead actor. The Ocean series would never have been made in 1950 because the studios would never have let Clooney, Pitt, and Damon all share the screen in the same film.
"Whom would you cast in any role Mitchum, Bogart, Cooper, Stewart, or Gable played?"
I guess that depends on the film. The corollary is which of those actors would you substitute for Depp, in, oh, Pirates or Willy Wonka? I doubt any of them could have pulled it off. Of those actors, I think Stewart is out of place. He generally did not play a tough guy. I think Hanks is often compared to him, and indeed, I can see Hanks playing some of his roles.
At the end of the day, I think that the actors of yesteryear generally lived harder, drank more, cared less about their physical health. I remember a story in which John Wayne appeared on Laugh-In. You may recall the episode. His pay? A bottle of Bourbon. My guess is that actors today do not live as hard, care more about their appearance, and therefore their craft reflects these realities.
"As far as who could kick who's ass... that's how you rank greatness?"
No. You posited that yesteryears leading actors were "tougher." I posited that they were no tougher than many of today's leads. As I have written before, Bogart is my favorite actor. Would I call him a great actor? No. I would call him a great, unique personality that I love to watch on the screen. But what I see of Bogart (or Mitchum, Wayne, Gable) on the screen is what I think you got off the screen as well. Depp, on the other hand, appears to be completely different off the screen than his characters, which are all over the map. To me he is a great actor.
"I can't think of any actors now working that have that "honesty.""
I would put Bruce Willis in that camp. I do not know what "honesty" means in a business that, by its nature, rewards dishonesty - your ability to convince someone you are something you are not. Maybe integrity is the better word? What you saw is what you got. But then with California preoccupied with no smoking, eating healthy, clean air, etc., I am not sure where they fit in. I venture to guess that most of those "honest" actors you admire were Republicans.
Gable was a member of the right wing Preservation of American Ideals, and was a known homophobe. Jimmy Stewart was a staunch Republican. Robert Mitchum addressed the Republican National Convention in 1992, John Wayne in 1968. Although, to be fair, Bogart and Tracy were Democrats. Perhaps liberal California has softened our actors? Ironic.
Rooney was today's Depp.
Bogart was quite different off screen, according to his squeeze of many years, Ms. Bacall.
Mr. Cooper was aristocratic in bearing, highly polished, but played simple guys a lot until you see him in several roles as an executive... or as the sheriff in "High Noon."
Gable's "Mutiny" character had nothing to do with his comic roles.
There are many instances of studios allowing many stars to share a film. Brando and Sinatra in a certain musical first comes to mind. Wayne and Stewart in several. Your rule is true in the main, of course.
I just don't appreciate Depp. He always plays the same role as far as I can see, the rather whacky yet sensitive kind of nice guy.
I could not come up with anyone else either for current actors. It may partially be because of the types of male characters in todays films.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
