 
|
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 |
66.74.72.231
In Reply to: Why is Jeremy Irons so under-appreciated? Name an posted by tinear on March 11, 2005 at 05:02:56:
tinear,I have to say I alternately love and loath Irons. He and Hugh Grant all remind me a bit of Jimmy Stewart- excellent and entertaining when acting in something that already suits them, but thrust into a broader arena, the lack of real acting range starts to appear.
When Irons (or Grant, or Stewart) is the Everyman, a slightly wide-eyed, ineffective observer- like "Brideshead Revisited" or his cypher/chameleon-like Von Bulow, he does well, but sometimes he ends up with ridiculous parts like his villain in "Die Hard with a Vengance".
Irons may take on projects with this poor casting because becoming the movie's "name brand" actor usually comes with a too- large- to- pass- up cheque. [Look also at Maggie Smith and K. Branaugh doing the "Harry Potter" disasters, Judi Dench in "Bond" stuff.]
If Irons had a bigger acting range and was more selective in the parts he accepts, he would have a more even critical position.
Cheers,
Bambi B
Follow Ups:
..that maybe it's 'ok' for actors to have a limited range, to excel at what they do, rather that insisting they have to fulfill a complete range?
Is excelling at what they do 'type-casting'?
This maybe separates the great actors from mere 'character' actors, but I feel certain actors have certain roles down to a 't'.
A great actor, for me, is someone like Montgomery Clift in the Misfits, playing a macho cowboy when in reality he's a fragile gay.
Even Orson Welles never really escaped the roles that he played.
Thinking about versatlity, how about Tim Roth (Little Odessa, Planet of the Apes) or Chris Cooper (just look at his pedigree: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0177933/)?
JS,Yes, I think it's a sign of the better brand of actor when they know their limitations and choose parts accordingly. It's the discrimination combined with self-knowledge that steers them into good roles that they can play effectively.
Katherine Hepburn, who was described at the time as "...running the emothional gamut all the way from A to B" eventually found her niche and did very well. For some actors like Steve McQueen, who must have had the smallest range of anyone I can think of, there would have been no career without his finding that exact niche. Today, I think Johnny Depp always chooses roles that suit him.
You're right about the great versatility of Tim Roth. I kind of pair him with another free-ranger: Gary Oldman. Those two can do Shakespeare to Sci-Fi. English actors generally seem to have a higher proportion with a larger range.
Cheers,
Bambi B
I saw The Magnificent Seven again the other day.
What a great film.
Steve McQueen really knew how to present himself, limits and all, in front of a camera.
Maybe 'charisma' can't be learned????
He had a way with props that made his characters convincing.
You said it all.
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 © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
