# Are the young actors of today up to the standards of old?



## Hypes (May 24, 2004)

One thing that has been in my mind for a while is the comparison between today's young actors and the ones of the _Godfather I_&_II_ and _Taxi Driver_ era. We all remember Al Pacino, Robert De Niro and Julia Roberts, and you've got to agree they were _incredible_ actors, especially for their age. 

But what about today? Do we have these kinds of actors in today's movies? Are they up to the standards set by their predecessors?


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 24, 2004)

One big problem is that Hollywood has always been obsessed with looks and glamour - but they always had room for their ugly bad boys, whether it's Cagney or De Niro. But more recently - over the past 10-15 years - it seems that Hollywood is more interested in pushing the pretty face beyond all reasonable bounds. It seems there's little room for ugly bad boys in the Hollywood mainstream, and instead they have to be _pretty_ and bad boys. 

 Hopefully the complete supficiality of this approach will not win out, and that the more accomplished actors - regardless of looks - will still have a place in Hollywood.

 Or perhaps I'm just old and cynical.


----------



## dwndrgn (May 24, 2004)

You are right Brian.  You don't see many Gene Hackman's or Karl Maldens today.  There are a couple; two I can think of right now is Edward Norton and Steve Buscemi.  Hollywood has always gone for the pretty face first and acting ability second, it just seems more pronounced these days.


----------



## Hypes (May 24, 2004)

Edward Norton is not a pretty face?

He's one of the best new actors, but still, he's far from ugly!

.. and why I am I defending him ... I'm so confused!


----------



## Michael (May 24, 2004)

I can't help being influenced by Hollywood's garbage! Woe is me! I do at least _try_ to stray from it, but I have to admit that movies keep rolling through my head while I'm writing.


----------



## Hypes (May 24, 2004)

You should read King's _On Writing_ he has something to say about the influence on writers by TV.


----------



## Michael (May 24, 2004)

Thank you, Andreas.  I'll look for it!


----------



## Hypes (May 24, 2004)

Michael said:
			
		

> Thank you, Andreas.  I'll look for it!



You're very welcome. It's a good book, actually. I am in the process of reading it now.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (May 24, 2004)

Ed Norton and Steve Buscemi are great actors.  Philip Seymour Hoffman is ugly as sin, but a great great actor.  

Who were the great actors before the De Nero, Pacino, Brando era?  There have only been a few great actors in each decade.  I agree about the current trend towards aesthetics over talent.  In France they like their actors to be quite ugly, and if the actors are not ugly they use cosmetics to make them look ugly.  The French are a queer lot.  Reno and Gerard Depardieu are very good actors non the less.  

I like Eric Bana, he is great in Chopper.  I have always thought that Leonardo Dicaprio was a good actor despite him selling his ar se to the devil.  Johnny Depp has done some good roles.  There are some good actors out there.  Paul Walker is one to watch out for...


----------



## Foxbat (May 24, 2004)

Hmm. Interesting question. My opinion? Here it is:

Go back a few years to a film like The Longest Day with a galaxy of stars in it. When was the last time you saw a film with that many A list actors? A Bridge Too Far is probably the closest - and that's nowhere near it.

Why? Is it because young actors are not up to it? I don't think so. Looks? Glamour? It has a part to play but there's always room for that craggy face. No folks, it's that dear old problem of money. Many actors are at their best when playing off other great talents but, nowadays, with films costing so much, it's hard to afford more than one A list actor.

John Wayne was the highest paid in The Longest Day (£15000). Even with inflation, that's nothing to what a B or even C lister would get. The problem is not so much talent as the over-estimation (and, therefore, overpricing) of talent. Sad but true.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (May 24, 2004)

John Wayne was not a good actor.


----------



## Sage Orion (May 24, 2004)

I think that our generation and many more that come are getting 
prettier!!  Look at our latest movies and everyone of those actors
are more beautiful than the older generations. 

I don't think its just Hollywood......I think its both evolution and Hollywood.  

The actors in LOTR, Gladiator, Last Samurai, Star Wars, and many others....

I think I proved my point.


----------



## Michael (May 24, 2004)

Maybe it's evolution in the general sense, but then again--more specifically--it could just be selective breeding.


----------



## Foxbat (May 24, 2004)

Here's What you said



> John Wayne was not a good actor


Here's what I said



> John Wayne was the highest paid


Let's see if you can spot the difference.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (May 24, 2004)

So why did you mention him?


----------



## Hypes (May 24, 2004)

They're not more beautiful, they simply conform to our notions of beauty. They differ over the decades, you know.

(And Star Wars is a 30-year old trilogy - it doesn't apply to your argument. Unless you're talking Ep I & II, but they're rubbish, anyway)

Personally, I think Leonardo DiCaprio is an awful actor. Eric Bana has promise, though he needs some good roles.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (May 24, 2004)

Fair enough Andreas.  Maybe I was a bit hasty throwing Leonardo in.  Bana is great in Chopper and in Black Hawk Down.  

John Wayne was a very poor actor though.

Ronald Reagan.


----------



## Michael (May 24, 2004)

Standards of beauty do vary . . . over time, between cultures, among indiviuals, etc. etc. Good point, Hypes.


----------



## Foxbat (May 24, 2004)

> So why did you mention him?


 
To illustrate my point about the vast sums of money now being paid out and how that limits resources - my point being that it will be a rare occurence to get so many actors together in a film like that nowadays. And how the interaction between quality actors becomes less frequent as a result of this.

But while we are on the subject, here are some facts: The Searchers has been consistently voted by both critics and viewers alike in the top echelons of various ‘Best Ever Film’ polls. In 2002, Scotsman viewers voted it best film ever. Admittedly, it was probably more due to the direction of John Ford rather than Wayne’s acting. On top of that Wayne was awarded an Oscar for a stellar performance in True Grit. In his career, he has produced quite a few turkeys (The Green Berets, The Conqueror ) but looking at his career as a whole, it becomes hard to dismiss him so easily. Not the best in the world but certainly not the worst.


----------



## Hypes (May 24, 2004)

Yes, he did very well in _Black Hawk Down_, however, the nature of the movie does not conform well with showcasing one's skills as anything more than an action actor. It's too anonymous, essentially.

Fifty years ago, it was considered beautiful to be a little on the large side. Today, it is the exact opposite. The Asians find Europeans and Americans to be ugly. Europeans and Americans, however, find Asians very attractive and exotic. And so on.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 24, 2004)

Johm Wayne - I realy need to revisit his films again. Always watched them as a kid. Great sense of humour, too - ever see the footage of him at UCLA in the late 60's? You'd expect him to be stiff-necked, and ground to a pulp in response. But he was chilled and charming. 

 As for acting - it;s as much about what you bring to the screen - it's presence. Is Christopher Lee a great actor? That would be debatable - but what about presence? More than most can match.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (May 24, 2004)

He's a poor actor.  Presence is important, secondary to acting.  He may have been in some good films, but he is talentless.


----------



## Dead Riverdragon (May 24, 2004)

Are you talking about Christopher Lee, Lac? If so I think he's a prime example of the nature of acting as an ineffable talent, as I for one think calling him 'talentless' is the most ridiculous of crimes. Anyone who has seen The Wicker Man will shout that accusaton down with vehemence, and have the right of it...


----------



## Hypes (May 24, 2004)

I wouldn't say talentless, but he is very monotonous. He only does one role well. Much like Clint Eastwood. Not much range.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (May 25, 2004)

I was referring to John Wayne.  

Lee is a god.

I first saw Wicker Man when I was twelve.  It freaked me out a bit, but I loved it.  The may pole scene seems to haunt me for no reason....

I think Lee could have done a wider of range of roles.


----------



## Dead Riverdragon (May 25, 2004)

You make me happy! 

(Likewise I love Clint, 'The Good, The Bad and The Ugly' = seminal, and in that film Clint= God )


----------



## Lacedaemonian (May 25, 2004)

His best film without a doubt.  My nanna brought me up on Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronsen and Columbo.  She is a fairly cool person.  She also got me into Bob Marley....  Eccentric is not the word...


----------



## Michael (May 25, 2004)

I like Clint's work, although I'm not a big fan.I think _Pale Rider_ and _Unforgiven_ were good, and I'm not much for Westerns either!

Christopher Lee I have always liked. Of course, most of his work I saw when I was very young, so I only vaguely remember some. What I do recall is _Christopher Lee_. He stood out. That might have a lot to do with presence, however.

I don't think I've seen _Wicker Man_. Now that I've read your posts I think I want to very much!

Incidentally, has anyone seen a a movie calle T_he Creeping Flesh_? Was Lee in that one? I'm trying to remember movies I haven't seen for, oh, 20-25 years. Since I remember the title I'll look for it, but I was curious anyway.


----------



## Foxbat (May 25, 2004)

I think The Creeping Flesh is available now on DVD. Check out 
www.imdb.com

Here's something worth thinking about: every single poster here (myself included) has automatically assumed 'Hollywood' or, at least, the English speaking part of the film industry - when there are literally hundreds of fine actors working all over the world on stage and screen. Personally, I would recommend the Japanese film scene right now (Ring, Ring 2, Ring 0, Dark Water, Score). There have also been in recent years excellent Italian, French, Argentinian and German films. There are many others I haven't mentioned, so perhaps the future's not as bleak as we think. Perhaps we are just looking in the wrong place.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 25, 2004)

A lot of characters get stuck in one or more "personality" roles - look at De Niro and how if anyone needs a violent Italian gangster they'll call him to cast (though kudos for his breaking the mould with wider roles). John Wayne was someone who was just cast as the brave frontiersman and stayed in that role - an embodiment of American spirit, if you will. As for how well he acted - I'll to wait until I see one of his films again. But, really, the standards in the 1960's were pretty different to now - there was still a sense of theatre in acting then, whereas now the drive is on complete naturalism.


----------



## Hypes (May 25, 2004)

I agree with you that we should not limit ourselves entirely to Hollywood. Norwegian movies, for on, are very good. I recommend you give _Elling_ a look.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (May 25, 2004)

My older brother likes Scandinavian films, of the non-pronagraphic variety.  Although these are mainly Swedish I think.  I have seen the Danish film, The Idiots, by Lars Von Pretensious.

Not sure that I have seen a Norwegian film before??

I have seen a film from nearly every other country in the world though.

Did I mention in my Introduction that I was a dullard?


----------



## Foxbat (May 25, 2004)

> I recommend you give _Elling_ a look.


 I don't think I've seen a Norwegian film either. Something I shall have to remedy


----------



## littlemissattitude (May 25, 2004)

Okay.  First things first: Robert DiNiro is _not_ ugly.  Not handsome in a classical sense, maybe, but still not ugly.

I think the problem here isn't so much the lack of talented actors, but the lack of material good enough and challenging enough to showcase actors' talents.  Sure, there is the odd good film, but so much of what comes out now is just action.  The chase scenes are the stars, not the actors.  Of course, in the past, the ratio of good films to dreck probably wasn't any different than it is today; it's just that we don't see the lousy old films too often.  What we do see are the great old films, with great performances from talented actors.

Case in point - James Dean.  Maybe if he had lived to make more films, he wouldn't be considered the great actor that he is considered to be.  He only made three theatrical films - "East of Eden", "Rebel Without a Cause", and "Giant".  In all three films he had a real, three-dimensional characters to develop, and he did an amazing job with all three.  If you haven't seen these films, you should (although three and a half hours of Elizabeth Taylor and Rock Hudson in "Giant" are a little hard to take sometimes).


----------



## Lacedaemonian (May 26, 2004)

littlemissattitude is absolutely right.  Whether good films are being made or not it is the studios responsibility.  Casting is also their responsibility.  They should give new talent a chance.  My brother has missed out on a number of roles to inferior actors just because they have been in other films or TV dramas.  Is this the studios fault or the audience?


----------



## Sage Orion (May 26, 2004)

I think so.   I think they should give new people a chance!

I agree!!


----------



## erickad71 (May 26, 2004)

> My brother has missed out on a number of roles to inferior actors just because they have been in other films or TV dramas


 .  
Your brother is an actor? That must be interesting.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (May 26, 2004)

He is not a celebrated actor but makes a living out of acting.  He has missed out on some big parts which would have kick started his film/TV career.  He never gets upset though, I suppose he loves theatre enough to keep him happy.  He had a big part in Billy Elliott until the last minute, but they give it to some talentless TV actor(?).  Billy Elliott was a poor film anyway, so it was a blessing in a way.


----------



## erickad71 (May 26, 2004)

I haven't seen Billy Elliot. Is that the one about the young boy who learns to dance?


----------



## Lacedaemonian (May 26, 2004)

Yes, that's the one.


----------



## erickad71 (May 26, 2004)

Well, wishing your brother the best of luck in his career.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 26, 2004)

littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> Okay.  First things first: Robert DiNiro is _not_ ugly.  Not handsome in a classical sense, maybe, but still not ugly.


 I simply meant in the classical sense.


----------



## Foxbat (May 26, 2004)

Craggy or weathered is a better way to describe De Niro methinks  

As we say in Ecosse ....he's had a hard paper roond!

On the subject of new talent - it must be hard breaking through and my best wishes to your brother lacedaemonium. I suppose it's easier for the studios to play safe with established box-office draws when it comes to casting - which is a shame for the struggling actor trying to get his break.



> it's just that we don't see the lousy old films too often. What we do see are the great old films,


I don't know why but I love watching lousy films and have a fair old collection. Hell! That's what the internet was invented for - to give me a route to purchasing as much drivel as I can lay my grubby little hands on


----------



## Hypes (May 26, 2004)

_You talkin' to me?_


----------



## Lacedaemonian (May 26, 2004)

_Look who's talking too -_ Hypes Avatar


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 26, 2004)

Was the cartoon "Vicky the Viking" originally Norwegian? 

 "Hey, hey, Vicky,
 Hey, Vicky, hey - 
 You and your Viking ways..."


----------



## Hypes (May 26, 2004)

I've never even heard of it. Did they have horns?


----------



## Lacedaemonian (May 26, 2004)

Yes they all had horns on their helmets.  It was based off the coast of Norway and Sweden in a place called Flake.  Vicky was a boy.  It was written by a bloke called Runer Johnson.  Does that help, Hypes?


----------



## Hypes (May 26, 2004)

Recommended Scandinavian films which pop into my mind:


Jalla! Jalla! (Swedish)
Insomnia (Norwegian - original)
Buddy (Norwegian)
Elling (Norwegian)
Detektor (Norwegian)
Kopps (Swedish)
Ondskapen (Danish)
Idiotene (The Idiots - Danish)
Johnny Vang (Norwegian)
Den som frykter ulven (Norwegian)
****ing Åmål (Swedish)
Svidd Neger (Norwegian)
Himmelfall (Norwegian)

All of them are accessable on www.imdb.com


----------



## Hypes (May 26, 2004)

Vicky the Viking sounds like a cheap swedish porn movie. 

It's probably scandinavian, but it's also an abomination upon all that is holy. They have horns.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (May 26, 2004)

It was an old cartoon aimed at young children but I understand your pain.  Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, Braveheart, U571.....butchered history/mythology.


----------



## Hypes (May 26, 2004)

At least _Braveheart_ was enjoyable.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (May 26, 2004)

I enjoyed Vicky the Viking, although I thought that the main character was a girl until years later when somebody correctly informed me otherwise......


----------



## Hypes (May 27, 2004)

She wasn't?


----------



## littlemissattitude (May 27, 2004)

Lacedaemonian said:
			
		

> It was an old cartoon aimed at young children but I understand your pain. Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, Braveheart, U571.....butchered history/mythology.


I've found that when watching films (especially from the Hollywood establishment), it's best not to expect too much historical accuracy.  Even if the story is based on an historical incident, just sit back and enjoy it as storytelling and go read a book if you want the real story (and even then, you have to be very selective about which books you choose - they often aren't any more accurate than films are).

A case in point is "A Beautiful Mind".  There was a huge controversy over that film because some felt that some of the more unpleasant aspects of Nash's personality and life story were glossed over.  But I think that Ron Howard made a good point in defending his film when he said that he did not set out to do an historical re-creation of Nash's life, but simply used Nash's life as a starting point to tell a good story.  I don't think there is any dishonor in that.  It's a good thing, of course, if someone sets out to do an accurate historical recreation of an event and then accomplishes that.  But it isn't always necessary to do that when making a film based in history.  I will say that I do have a problem with the advertising departments of studios or film distributors when they lead the audience to believe that a film is historically accurate when it isn't.  But that is often not in the hands of the filmmaker, and so the filmmaker shouldn't be blamed for that.

One solution, Lacedaemonian, is to write and produce films yourself and make them historically accurate to the degree that it is possible in a two or three hour film.  Could be fun.  Could even be profitable if you play your cards right.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (May 27, 2004)

Historical accuracy is one thing, but taking the kudos for achievements that other countries have made, is a sad state of affairs.  U571 was cheap.


----------



## Hypes (May 27, 2004)

Considering the glaring lack of any real history to their name, they have to filch _something_.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Jul 9, 2004)

Yeah, but why does it have to be British history that they steal and shat on.  They could make films about Vietnam..... or slaughtering their native Indians ........ or installing Sadam into power, or training Osama Bin Laden to fight the Russians, or a film about Vietnam.

I like a good Vietnam film.


----------



## Hypes (Jul 9, 2004)

No better Vietnam films than the ones by Stone, Coppola and Kubrick.


----------

