Know about Knowing?

[NorBro]

Every time you mentioned NC acting crazy, I thought of MG in the LWs (which I actually saw all 4 for the first time last year believe it or not).

Enemy-of-the-State is one of my favorite films with Will Smith. But I pretty much liked everything he did back then because I watched his TV show everyday while growing up.

 

[Sagan]

Back in 9th grade, we got a new transfer student. Her voice was fork-scratching-plate. Grotesquely unpleasant but not intentionally so. At some point, I began to cover up my ears. Then, other students began to notice me covering up my ears and laughter would erupt as soon as the young lady in question began to speak. In hindsight, I feel pretty bad about that. I made fun of her for something that wasn't her fault.

Besides, she was in no way as screechy as Bon Scott. Just in the wrong profession, wrong place, wrong time.

Well, obviously you didn't do that just to be deliberately cruel, DLD, or you wouldn't still be regretting it now. In any case, if it were me I'd expect that the girl would probably be aware of the sound of her voice, (she must have been told about it before then), and very likely that classroom experience was a motivation for modifying it. If she didn't take it as an object lesson, and do some work on her speech, who's to blame?

You probably spared her the experience of being picked on for it later, by some deliberate asshole .

 

[Guest]

My rationale for liking Walken? Well, I think he tends to get his screen persona from within himself, like an alter-ego which he doesn't get to display in real life. I don't think it's a contrived manner, even though it's a highly visible manner. From what little I've seen of him in real life, he seems shy to the point of discomfort.

Well... I think... you’ve made... a good... point!

 

[Sagan]

Every time you mentioned NC acting crazy, I thought of MG in the LWs (which I actually saw all 4 for the first time last year believe it or not).

Enemy-of-the-State is one of my favorite films with Will Smith. But I pretty much liked everything he did back then because I watched his TV show everyday while growing up.

Yes I've only seen one of the LW movies. Mel Gibson's acting was a bit overdone, but I remember thinking that was him trying to get on top of his Australian reluctance to be "demonstrative". Acting just doesn't come naturally to Aussies, although some have certainly managed to do it with some conviction. You might compare it to Canadians, who also are a bit conventional, and have to work hard to get that "pretending they're someone else" thing right.

 

[Sagan]

Well... I think... you’ve made... a good... point!

:cheesy:Well ............ y'know ............................I'm glad, y'know ..... that I did.

 

[rsbush]

Hmmm ... I'm starting to think someone should have warned Nick Cage about his acting and spared him from being picked on for it later, by some deliberate asshole.

 

[DLD]

Well, obviously you didn't do that just to be deliberately cruel, DLD, or you wouldn't still be regretting it now. In any case, if it were me I'd expect that the girl would probably be aware of the sound of her voice, (she must have been told about it before then), and very likely that classroom experience was a motivation for modifying it. If she didn't take it as an object lesson, and do some work on her speech, who's to blame?

You probably spared her the experience of being picked on for it later, by some deliberate asshole .

I think I turned a minor annoyance into a comedy bit as means of drawing more attention to myself in a study group that was filled with high achievers, aka straight A students. Granted, I was only 14 then and still working my way upwards on the trajectory to Mr. Wiseass. Nonetheless, under a modern set of sensibilities, I was a bit too callous.

Of course, it was not the sole indiscretion of my high school years. Of which one could tell more stories. With Nick Cage in the main role.

 

[Sagan]

I think I turned a minor annoyance into a comedy bit as means of drawing more attention to myself in a study group that was filled with high achievers, aka straight A students. Granted, I was only 14 then and still working my way upwards on the trajectory to Mr. Wiseass. Nonetheless, under a modern set of sensibilities, I was a bit too callous.

Well, DLD, you obviously never did become Mr. Wiseass. If you had, you wouldn't be still beating yourself up now, over an incident in your youth that the other participants have long forgotten. You obviously learned a lesson in life. That makes you wise, not wiseass. You might have been a little prick once, :laugh:when you were 14, (weren't we all), but you're obviously no longer that youth.

And obviously that girl is no longer that youth, either. She's a grown woman now. If you were to run into her today, your first impulse would be, no doubt, to profusely apologise for your youthful behaviour way back when. Do you believe that she would still hold that against you? Nah. She'd probably laugh it off, maybe say you were an asshole but that was then and this is now. People grow up and adjust to the things that happen to them when they're young. You did. So would she. And after all, it wasn't as horrendous as you remember it. Nothing ever is.

Of course, it was not the sole indiscretion of my high school years. Of which one could tell more stories. With Nick Cage in the main role.

Tell those stories, then. I'm all ears.

 

[OldCorpse]

Have you got all day? I'll assume you're not being facetious, Bro, and I'll answer it but partly, and very briefly. I had to look up a list to make sure I didn't forget anyone. Most of those whom I rate highly are, naturally, the older ones. And this isn't all of them;

Robert Duval, Will Smith, Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, Harrrison Ford, Charles Bronson, Lucy Fry, (Yes I know she's an Aussie), and Christopher Walken (and I'll just bet you make something of that.)

Directors: David Lean, Mel Gibson, Hitchcock..

As I said, that's just a teaser.

PS: And I like Lucy Fry solely because she looks like a girl I used to know, who, coincidentally, was Russian. So sue me. :laugh:

Meh, we all project stuff onto actors - and they may not be like that at all IRL. But it's so subjective. You see an actor one way, I see them another. Of that list of actors, I don't dislike any of them. I think they're all fine actors. BUT, I would not exactly say that each and every one of them is some kind of acting giant - some are pretty limited. Everybody loves Robert Duval - how can you not! Nonetheless, I think he has his own bag of tricks, and some of it is pretty calculated - and I can see right through it; watch how he uses his hands - often it's clearly planned, and to my eye, that takes me a bit out of the movie ("oh, it's just an actor!"). Now, that doesn't happen to make me dislike him or avoid his movies - all I'm saying, is that he, like Nic Cage, makes deliberate efforts which are transparent to some of the audience. I still like him. Denzel Washington - he's OK in my book... but that's all. Yes, I know he's regarded as an icon, but to me, I sense in him a lightweight; he plays "serious" and "heavy" and "deep", but he ain't got it, and when I watch him, I always have the feeling "this is a guy who acts depth, but he doesn't have what he lays claim to - that depth". I still don't hate him, and he doesn't destroy movies for me, but I don't ever feel "wow, great acting work" - he's serviceable. Harrison Ford's range is from A to B and back again. Pretty narrow. But - I still like him, and think he carries his roles well, and has quite a bit of charisma. Charles Bronson - that is just an accident. He has presence - but a lot of it is due to his peculiarity... the way he talked, it was just because of his background he was never able to overcome - doesn't say much for acting ability if you can't do that, but hey, he was so weird that I can watch him. I like Charlie Bronson. I don't think he was an actor exactly, but he carried films, no problem, most of the time - but you had to cast him well. Christopher Walken - what can I say... he has a face, and he rode that face for all it was; he played off of it; he didn't bring - to my eye - much in the way of acting chops, just played on his appearance... and most of the time, it was enough! But if you try to tell me he's a great actor, I'll knife you. He's a classic one trick pony to me, though I agree it's a pretty good trick. So he's OK to me. Tom Hanks is a legit great actor - no doubt about it - just grade A.

And Mel Gibson as an actor - to me - is vastly better than as a director. He has presence in spades. Charisma to spare. He makes roles believable. He can carry a movie. IRL, I know he's a major a$$hole, and a real piece of work, not someone I'd like to hang out with, but just on screen, I have to admit, he's a darn good actor. Not super wide range - somewhat narrow even - but man, what he lacks in range, he more than makes up in screen presence. Speaking of Aussies (or New Zealanders) - I'm surprised not to see Russell Crowe on your list. Again from what I understand a bit of an a$$hole IRL. But Russell Crowe is a real acting heavy weight - he has screen presence pretty much on pair with Mel Gibson, but he also has acting chops like nobody's business - I'd put him up as one of the greatest, just for his role in The Insider, though there are so many others. Just fantastic - and yet you don't even rate him... see, it's all subjective.

And so it goes. As to your directors list - it's just bizarre (to me). I mean, there are so many great directors out there, and you pick these three, of which I simply don't see Mel Gibson as belonging at all - he's competent (which is not nothing), but that's all. Hitchcock, yes, no doubt a great; David Lean - I keep hearing how great he is, but he bores me and I can't work up any enthusiasm for him, though I suppose he's competent enough. But those three? Just wierd... what about the greats of Fellini, Polanski, Kurosawa, Ozu, Leoni, David Lynch, Cameron, Bunuel, Godard, Haneke, Almodovar, Romero, Coppola, Carol Reed, Rohmer, Scorsese, and on and on and on, these are just off the top of my head, there are so many more - some of these guys only made a few good movies in their filmography, some more, but I'll put each and every one of them head and shoulders (and hips, and knees, and feet) above Mel Gibson as a director - I don't think Mel even comes into the first 1000, as far as I can see. But that's just it, YMMV, and everyone has their own take. I can justify my evaluations with detailed arguments, but ultimately there will come a point where it comes down to someone simply liking or not liking a given artist.

 

[Sagan]

Meh, we all project stuff onto actors - and they may not be like that at all IRL. But it's so subjective. You see an actor one way, I see them another. Of that list of actors, I don't dislike any of them. I think they're all fine actors. BUT, I would not exactly say that each and every one of them is some kind of acting giant - some are pretty limited.

Yes, OC, I wouldn't call them "giants" in any sense. They're just actors that I can watch without thinking 'they're just acting'. And yes, actors are just people who can remember long passages of speech and can put on faces while they do it.

Everybody loves Robert Duval - how can you not! Nonetheless, I think he has his own bag of tricks, and some of it is pretty calculated - and I can see right through it; watch how he uses his hands - often it's clearly planned, and to my eye, that takes me a bit out of the movie ("oh, it's just an actor!"). Now, that doesn't happen to make me dislike him or avoid his movies - all I'm saying, is that he, like Nic Cage, makes deliberate efforts which are transparent to some of the audience. I still like him.

Robert Duval certainly has his own bag of tricks, but they're so much more original than most other actors. I don't mind if an actor uses practised tricks to do a convincing job, if those tricks are used appropriately and in the context of the scene. Cage often misses the mark. For example, there's a scene in "Knowing" where he's explaining "randomness" to his class. Moodily, he says, "The very fact we exist is nothing (claps his raised hands together loudly) but the result of a complex yet inevitable string of chemical accidents etc etc .. " If you're trying to underscore the word, "nothing", most people would use a more recognisable gesture than a hand clap. We don't relate clapping of hands to expressions of futility. When he does it, we think it's going to lead to something else. That mental interruption hampers the scene. A simple snap of the fingers, or a spreading of the hands, would resonate with us and illustrate his feeling about "futility". Some people might say, well, that's Cage being unique and innovative. But uniqueness and innovation has to nevertheless serve the interests of the scene. Cage's choice of gestures was just plain incongruous in that scene. (Also it's a sudden loud noise that doesn't suit the soundscape of the classroom setting.)

(Denzel Washington - he's OK in my book... but that's all. Yes, I know he's regarded as an icon, but to me, I sense in him a lightweight; he plays "serious" and "heavy" and "deep", but he ain't got it, and when I watch him, I always have the feeling "this is a guy who acts depth, but he doesn't have what he lays claim to - that depth". I still don't hate him, and he doesn't destroy movies for me, but I don't ever feel "wow, great acting work" - he's serviceable.

I have to agree with that, OC. It's an accurate assessment, when I think about it.

Harrison Ford's range is from A to B and back again. Pretty narrow. But - I still like him, and think he carries his roles well, and has quite a bit of charisma.

Lol, yes, I can't dispute that. But as with all my favoured actors, Ford appeals because he doesn't try to do what he knows is beyond him. He knows his limitations and he doesn't try tricks to make up for them, like Cage does.

Charles Bronson - that is just an accident. He has presence - but a lot of it is due to his peculiarity... the way he talked, it was just because of his background he was never able to overcome - doesn't say much for acting ability if you can't do that, but hey, he was so weird that I can watch him. I like Charlie Bronson. I don't think he was an actor exactly, but he carried films, no problem, most of the time - but you had to cast him well.

Again, I wouldn't dispute that, OC. As I said, my list of liked actors is based upon what I personally liked, rather than my opinion of what good actors they were. I think as a layman I can't discuss the many and various skills involved in acting per se. As the man said, I don't know much about [insert profession], but I know what I like. rogar-Happy(DBG):

Christopher Walken - what can I say... he has a face, and he rode that face for all it was; he played off of it; he didn't bring - to my eye - much in the way of acting chops, just played on his appearance... and most of the time, it was enough! But if you try to tell me he's a great actor, I'll knife you. He's a classic one trick pony to me, though I agree it's a pretty good trick. So he's OK to me.

Funny thing, I never think of Christopher Walken's face as being part of his status as an actor. Of course, it's supposed to be, for all actors. But it's Walken's voice that I always associate with his name. And I do think it's his own voice, phrasing, inflections, and tone that he uses.

Tom Hanks is a legit great actor - no doubt about it - just grade A.

No contest.

And Mel Gibson as an actor - to me - is vastly better than as a director. He has presence in spades. Charisma to spare. He makes roles believable. He can carry a movie. IRL, I know he's a major a$$hole, and a real piece of work, not someone I'd like to hang out with, but just on screen, I have to admit, he's a darn good actor. Not super wide range - somewhat narrow even - but man, what he lacks in range, he more than makes up in screen presence.

Nuh, can't see it, OC. All I see when watching Mel Gibson is a guy who feels uncomfortable in front of a camera, and wishes he were anywhere else but there. Maybe that angst is read by some as charisma. His directing, though, is extremely effective. Maybe he gets his thwarted acting impulse out of his system by directing other actors. We'll have to agree to disagree on MG.

Speaking of Aussies (or New Zealanders) - I'm surprised not to see Russell Crowe on your list. Again from what I understand a bit of an a$$hole IRL. But Russell Crowe is a real acting heavy weight - he has screen presence pretty much on pair with Mel Gibson, but he also has acting chops like nobody's business - I'd put him up as one of the greatest, just for his role in The Insider, though there are so many others. Just fantastic - and yet you don't even rate him... see, it's all subjective.

Russsell Crowe does have a screen presence, I'll admit, but to me it's always exactly the same in every movie he does. A heavy-set, glowering, coarse-voiced actor couldn't help but have charisma, but I'd like to see him go against type just once, to show he can do it.

As to your directors list - it's just bizarre (to me). I mean, there are so many great directors out there, and you pick these three, of which I simply don't see Mel Gibson as belonging at all - he's competent (which is not nothing), but that's all. Hitchcock, yes, no doubt a great; David Lean - I keep hearing how great he is, but he bores me and I can't work up any enthusiasm for him, though I suppose he's competent enough. But those three? Just wierd... what about the greats of Fellini, Polanski, Kurosawa, Ozu, Leoni, David Lynch, Cameron, Bunuel, Godard, Haneke, Almodovar, Romero, Coppola, Carol Reed, Rohmer, Scorsese, and on and on and on, these are just off the top of my head, there are so many more - some of these guys only made a few good movies in their filmography, some more, but I'll put each and every one of them head and shoulders (and hips, and knees, and feet) above Mel Gibson as a director - I don't think Mel even comes into the first 1000, as far as I can see. But that's just it, YMMV, and everyone has their own take. I can justify my evaluations with detailed arguments, but ultimately there will come a point where it comes down to someone simply liking or not liking a given artist.

I just picked those Directors off the top of my head, as you did. Tbh, I've never taken much notice of Directors unless I've particularly liked their work. Those foreign Directors are mostly unknown to me, I'll admit, because I rarely watch foreign films.

I didn't mention Polanski, Lynch, Coppola, or Scorcese only because I didn't think of them, (being asked to name favourite people in a field which is crowded with them is a big ask on shortish notice :undecided ). That's probably why my list seemed weird to you.

But I must add that Cameron would not have made my list even if I had thought of him.

 

[combatentropy]

I like Lucy Fry solely because she looks like a girl I used to know

Nothing wrong with that.

On the flip side, let us not forget that we may dislike actors for the same reason. Your irritation with Nicolas Cage is so strong that I wonder if he reminds you of someone else in your life.

You mentioned Christopher Walken, which is noteworthy, because already I had been thinking that if you don't like Nic Cage then maybe you also dislike Christopher Walken. They both strike me as people who are just being honest onscreen, which is why people love them, despite their quirks.

 

[OldCorpse]

Cameron: The Terminator, Aliens. I rest my case. Like I said, some of these directors only made a couple of great films, but that's enough for me compared to a director who has made zero great films. Terminator 2 and True Lies is respectable, though not great. All in all, I gotta rank Cameron - 2 great, and 2 respectable. Damn good record right there. But, horses for courses. Now, Aliens is a sequel to someone else's film - but it's the rare sequel that's on par with the original... doesn't happen too often. Which brings to mind Ridley Scott - another great director: The Duelists, Alien, Blade Runner. Wow, I just realized those are his first three films! But anyhow, Alien and Blade Runner are legit great movies, and The Duelists is excellent. IMHO, he never again matched that level, but he'll be in the pantheon of great directors just for Blade Runner and Alien.

It's funny, because I do notice directors - I used to think back when I was very young that it's all about story and actors. As I got older I realized that it's actually about director first, then actors and then story, but all are very important and quite intertwined. Man, this thread has gone off on a tangent

 

[Mitch Gross]

Since this thread is pretty wildly of course, I'll note that with celebrity some project the actor's persona onto the characters they play. Sometimes they fall very much into that trap and it's what turns them into big stars (a brilliant line in My Favorite Year: "I'm not an actor, I'm a movie star!"). But it can be fascinating to take some of the great ones and imagine how they could be in different roles. I Think that's when I begin to realize how interesting and skilled they can be, and how they can raise even average material into something great. For instance, take any role Humphrey Bogart ever played and any role Jack Nicholson ever played and swap the actors. Nicholson in To Have and Have Not, Bogart in Five Easy Pieces, Nicholson in Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Bogard in The Shining. They would be fantastic.

The corollary to this is when great actors embody a scene and raise it to a new level. When everyday actors play out the exact same scene it doesn't have the same level. There are a few examples of this from over the years, but none more glaring a difference than the diner scene between DeNiro & Pacino in 1995's Heat, and the original TV movie version LA Takedown that Michael Mann shot six years earlier.

Heat diner scene
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFHAiAif6gU&feature=youtu.be

LA Takedown version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQTn0psH_bM

 

[Sagan]

Nothing wrong with that.

On the flip side, let us not forget that we may dislike actors for the same reason. Your irritation with Nicolas Cage is so strong that I wonder if he reminds you of someone else in your life.

Good point, Combat, but no, I can honestly say I don't know anyone who reminds me of Nicolas Cage. I do, however, know a few people who are shallow posers and will do anything to be noticed. So, I guess that's close.

You mentioned Christopher Walken, which is noteworthy, because already I had been thinking that if you don't like Nic Cage then maybe you also dislike Christopher Walken. They both strike me as people who are just being honest onscreen, which is why people love them, despite their quirks.

Yes, Christopher Walken is very likely just being himself when he's called upon to act. I think his unique demeanour in acting is due to his unique nature. Or, at least, the nature he tries to have, in real life. As I said, I think he's rather introverted in real life. But when he's on screen, he seems to draw upon that "second nature" of his and to express it.

 

[Sagan]

Cameron: The Terminator, Aliens. I rest my case. Like I said, some of these directors only made a couple of great films, but that's enough for me compared to a director who has made zero great films. Terminator 2 and True Lies is respectable, though not great. All in all, I gotta rank Cameron - 2 great, and 2 respectable. Damn good record right there. But, horses for courses. Now, Aliens is a sequel to someone else's film - but it's the rare sequel that's on par with the original... doesn't happen too often. Which brings to mind Ridley Scott - another great director: The Duelists, Alien, Blade Runner. Wow, I just realized those are his first three films! But anyhow, Alien and Blade Runner are legit great movies, and The Duelists is excellent. IMHO, he never again matched that level, but he'll be in the pantheon of great directors just for Blade Runner and Alien.

Yes, I forgot Ridley Scott. The original Blade Runner is beyond any serious criticism, imho.

Cameron's "The Terminator" and "Aliens" were memorable films, sure. Could another Director have made them just as successful? I think so.

It's funny, because I do notice directors - I used to think back when I was very young that it's all about story and actors. As I got older I realized that it's actually about director first, then actors and then story, but all are very important and quite intertwined. Man, this thread has gone off on a tangent

Actually, I agree with you there, to a point. If a film comes out which is directed by a Director I admire, I'll have a look at it, even if it's not in a genre that I prefer.

I hope this thread doesn't get closed just because it seems to have taken a detour. My original premise stands and everything we've talked about since then derives from the comments I made then.

I think Nicolas Cage couldn't give a genuine performance no matter who directed him. In fact, I hear he often clashes with Directors by repeatedly trying to introduce something to his performances which his Director isn't comfortable with.

 

[Sagan]

Since this thread is pretty wildly of course, I'll note that with celebrity some project the actor's persona onto the characters they play. Sometimes they fall very much into that trap and it's what turns them into big stars (a brilliant line in My Favorite Year: "I'm not an actor, I'm a movie star!"). But it can be fascinating to take some of the great ones and imagine how they could be in different roles. I Think that's when I begin to realize how interesting and skilled they can be, and how they can raise even average material into something great. For instance, take any role Humphrey Bogart ever played and any role Jack Nicholson ever played and swap the actors. Nicholson in To Have and Have Not, Bogart in Five Easy Pieces, Nicholson in Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Bogard in The Shining. They would be fantastic.

It certainly would, Mitch! Fascinating to imagine it. Although I can't see Nicholson asking a bunch of cutthroat bandits a naiive question like, "Where's your badges?":cheesy:

The corollary to this is when great actors embody a scene and raise it to a new level. When everyday actors play out the exact same scene it doesn't have the same level. There are a few examples of this from over the years, but none more glaring a difference than the diner scene between DeNiro & Pacino in 1995's Heat, and the original TV movie version LA Takedown that Michael Mann shot six years earlier.

Heat diner scene
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFHAiAif6gU&feature=youtu.be

LA Takedown version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQTn0psH_bM

Point taken. Funny, I could imagine Cage in that Mann version. He'd be just as bad, only he'd be overdoing the punk voice.

 

[Guest]

 

[Sagan]

[video=youtube;I[/video]

Lol, pretty good, James. :grin:

But for the best Walken impression I've heard so far, I have to point to an actor who would never make my favourite actor's list. His impression in this video doesn't last long, but it's spot on. Even if you've seen it before, I reckon it's worth another look.

(The Walken one comes about the end of the interview, iirc).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FzIo_wZBRM

 

[DLD]

... Tell those stories, then. I'm all ears.

Well, this goes back to my early youth. I was all retired from a career in scooter theft, when some tough 13-year olds kidnapped my 8-year old brother and threatened to make him watch Christopher Walken dancing videos unless I stole 50 scooters in the next 72 hours. I don't want to give away the entire plot ...

 

[Guest]

Lol, pretty good, James. :grin:

But for the best Walken impression I've heard so far, I have to point to an actor who would never make my favourite actor's list. His impression in this video doesn't last long, but it's spot on. Even if you've seen it before, I reckon it's worth another look.

(The Walken one comes about the end of the interview, iirc).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FzIo_wZBRM

Tom hiddleston’s rendition of the Diner Scene from ‘Heat’ was pretty good, in particular his Pacino. Shows, even imitating Pacino from a couch is a better performance than the lesser known actors doong the same scene.