Buckaroo banzai counts as anything and everything.
And in my opinion, the original true grit was terrible. John Wayne was a horrible actor. The remake was well filmed and tightly written and still did was not interesting to me. It's over? That's it? Is how I felt at the end. Big bunch a nothing.
Spaghetti westerns, pale rider, dances with wolves, and Wyatt Earp are the only ones I like.
HIGH FIVE,I have never met anyone else that agreed with me on the subject of John Wayne. Around where I live if I mention that I hate John Wayne people get this look on their face like I just took a dump on their grandmother's chest.
Buckaroo banzai counts as anything and everything.
And in my opinion, the original true grit was terrible. John Wayne was a horrible actor. The remake was well filmed and tightly written and still did was not interesting to me. It's over? That's it? Is how I felt at the end. Big bunch a nothing.
Spaghetti westerns, pale rider, dances with wolves, and Wyatt Earp are the only ones I like.
HIGH FIVE,I have never met anyone else that agreed with me on the subject of John Wayne. Around where I live if I mention that I hate John Wayne people get this look on their face like I just took a dump on their grandmother's chest.
Wayne wasn't an actor, he was a Movie Star. A good director/producer put him in movies where the "John Wayne" character worked/ John Ford was one of those, and I feel that "The Searchers" was an AMAZING movie for the simple reason that Ford knew how to use Wayne, how to play off of his cinematic image, and show the dark side of that persona.
MOST of the people in Big Budget movies now are movie stars and not actors. Seth Rogan, Adam Sandler, Kevin James, etc.... are all Stars, but can you see any of them playing a character outside their wheelhouse?
To quote Alan Swann in My Favorite Year, "I'm not an actor, I'm a movie star!"
The Duke may not have been Lawrence Olivier, but he was one hell of a movie star.
BTW: Watch The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and then tell me John Wayne couldn't act.
I have seen that film ,and he plays the same part he has played in every film I have seen him in. While he was good at playing that one part,he just didn't show much range.
Jack Nicholson is not an actor he is a personality. Gary Oldman is an actor, you sometimes don't know he is in a movie until the credits go up. John Wayne, I believe, fits in the first category. Having said that, I loved The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and Rio Bravo, and Rio Lobo...
To quote Alan Swann in My Favorite Year, "I'm not an actor, I'm a movie star!"
The Duke may not have been Lawrence Olivier, but he was one hell of a movie star.
BTW: Watch The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and then tell me John Wayne couldn't act.
I have seen that film ,and he plays the same part he has played in every film I have seen him in. While he was good at playing that one part,he just didn't show much range.
In those days, the studios didn't want range. They wanted stars!
Audiences wanted to see John Wayne, not Tom Doniphon.
But John Wayne was a character created by Marion Morrison, and Mr. Morrison played him brilliantly for years.
I agree John Wayne was a movie star. I don't typically like movie stars. Except maybe ones from the 20s and 30s when they still had to act and acting was a job.
So then...Humphrey Bogart. Actor or Star? Peter Lorrie? Spencer Tracy? Tom Hanks? Harrison Ford?
If you go to "The New (insert name) Movie", they're a Star, regardless of their skill as an actor. You're going to spend a couple hours in the presence of this person you like, or rather this persona you like.
Buckaroo banzai counts as anything and everything.
And in my opinion, the original true grit was terrible. John Wayne was a horrible actor. The remake was well filmed and tightly written and still did was not interesting to me. It's over? That's it? Is how I felt at the end. Big bunch a nothing.
Spaghetti westerns, pale rider, dances with wolves, and Wyatt Earp are the only ones I like.
Wyatt Earp over Tombstone?
As for me I'll give the genres I don't really care for. Romance and most horror.
So then...Humphrey Bogart. Actor or Star? Peter Lorrie? Spencer Tracy? Tom Hanks? Harrison Ford?
Bogart,Tracy,Hanks and Ford have shown they can play a wide range of characters. I love Peter Lorrie but in pretty much every film he played Peter Lorrie.
And most of the actors random73 mentioned fit in with the old school I was talking about. They did the job, got paid, and the studio decided if they were movie stars in addition. That Walsall carefully crafted and cultivated.
Hanks is an actor. Ford used to be an actor. An actor performs as an art, has substance and meaning. A movie star,we should be calling celebrity, has a crafted career that requires no acting, just living the lifestyle. Hanks is famous and popular but also puts effort into his craft. Will smith does not.
And most of the actors random73 mentioned fit in with the old school I was talking about. They did the job, got paid, and the studio decided if they were movie stars in addition. That Walsall carefully crafted and cultivated.
Hanks is an actor. Ford used to be an actor. An actor performs as an art, has substance and meaning. A movie star,we should be calling celebrity, has a crafted career that requires no acting, just living the lifestyle. Hanks is famous and popular but also puts effort into his craft. Will smith does not.
In the history of posts on the internet I've never found one I disagreed with any more than this one. :)
Tom Hanks is Tom Hanks in any movie I see him in. Castaway? It's Tom Hanks working for FedEx. The DaVinci Code? Look at that horrible haircut on Tom Hanks. Big? Hey, it's Tom Hanks as a kid in a man's body. Saving Private Ryan? Tom Hanks is in the army now! Now having said all this, I have nothing against Tom Hanks. Lord knows I've seen enough of his movies (and enjoyed them)...but I've never pretended for a second that he was so immersed in his character that he was anything but Tom Hanks. Yes, even in Road to Perdition.
Ford? Never an actor. He'd probably be the first to tell you that. My dream movie is a Harrison Ford, Bill Paxton, Bill Pullman movie - I'd call it "Monotone Delivery". ;)
And to be fair...really, they're ALL actors. An actor is a job. Hell, *I've* been an actor before, and I suck! Only a handful are true artists, though.
And yes, Tombstone was about as factual to the real thing (take it from a resident) as Police Academy was to actual law enforcement. Great for quotes though...
I picked comedy. I believe that there is no better medicine than laughter and if you are a person that can people laugh, you're a true saint. I need laughter on a daily basis. I do watch a variety of genres, but more often than not I grab a comedy for movie watching. If not a comedy it is either a superhero flick or something from early to mid 80's television.
Is Bond a genre?? Seriously Action/Adventure with Disaster a close second. Disaster is too small a subset to make the cut compared to Action and/or Sci-Fi. Like Mike I love a good Spaghetti Western though I'd add Tombstone to his list ( which felt like a big budget Spaghetti to me anyway!)
Bogie had a HUGE range of roles, and brought something different to each of them. I would say that he had a very specific delivery and look, but his gangsters were nothing like Rick is Casablanca who was nothing like the role he played in Key Largo.
Harrison Ford? He always plays the same guy in every movie...except he's lost the ability to smirk like Han Solo with age.
There are two John Wayne movies I've watched repeatedly, and neither of them is a western. The Quiet Man is one, HATARI! is the other. Lawrence of Arabia is actually my favorite movie of all time. Star Wars is second, after SW, the list isn't as clearly defined, but I'm fairly certain if I were to sit down an actually create a top 20 list, HATARI! would be almost assuredly be amongst them. Though, I will concede John Wayne is, for the most part, a one trick pony - at least as far as acting is concerned.
I will concede John Wayne is, for the most part, a one trick pony - at least as far as acting is concerned.
But it was a great trick, and he was great at it.
Agreed.
While I prefer character actors, and by that I mean the sorts of actors who put aside vanity and persona and put the writing and the role first, I also have great respect for the sorts of people who have that sort of screen presence the camera loves and use it well. It is one thing to be the life of the party, or to be merely attractive. But to have presence- whether it is close to their own personality and energy or not, who knows- and be able to carry a story with it under the artificial and technical circumstances of acting on camera in a way that compels an audience? That's not nothing.
I do think what some might call "star" acting doesn't age as well as other acting, because like the music of a certain period I think it appeals most strongly to the period it was speaking to. Later it might seem mannered, too big, or too fake. But, then, often so does the fashion of the period, or even the speaking style of a period (just listen back to what radio broadcasters of the 40s or 50s sound like compared to now).
But just because it doesn't age as well, and just because I don't prefer it in the performances that I want to watch doesn't mean that I think it is worthless. Or easy.
If you think having star power on camera is easy, my response is: try it. See if you can even be relaxed and comfortable enough to be yourself on camera. You might find that even that is not as easy as it seems. And that is before all the rest of the technology, people, and given circumstances of the story are added. Add all those, and even 'just being yourself' actually becomes harder and harder to do.
It is not as simple as showing up and looking good. Often these are actors who know exactly what they are doing, and they are doing it on purpose. Watch where they put their eyes. Watch their understanding of just how close or wide of a shot they are in. Watch their control over their physicality. For the ones that have had long careers with consistent success, I would imagine a lot of work by them and their team went into understanding their persona well enough to first seek out and pursue the right roles, and later to know what to pick and champion from what was being offered. I'm not saying it is brain surgery, but there is certainly more to it all than just "lifestyle". There are celebrities who made a splash on mere lifestyle. But I would be curious if a single one of them- when someone built a movie around them- actually succeeded in doing the work of carrying a movie. Because there is a difference. There is work and skill involved.
Again, there are actors who I think work even harder than those who start with more natural gifts, and those are the ones I respect most, but I think a lot of presumption goes into thinking that star acting is not acting, or not work. I don't seek out John Wayne movies, for example, but I do respect that a huge audience found him compelling in his time. And it is not like that audience didn't have other choices. Heck, that was back at a time when far more films were being made. There were actually more stars to compete with- and not just behind the scenes, but on competing screens. To have engaged that many audience members over a long career actually took a lot of skill and a lot of acting. I think he just made it look easy.
Comments
MOST of the people in Big Budget movies now are movie stars and not actors. Seth Rogan, Adam Sandler, Kevin James, etc.... are all Stars, but can you see any of them playing a character outside their wheelhouse?
The Duke may not have been Lawrence Olivier, but he was one hell of a movie star.
BTW: Watch The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and then tell me John Wayne couldn't act.
Audiences wanted to see John Wayne, not Tom Doniphon.
But John Wayne was a character created by Marion Morrison, and Mr. Morrison played him brilliantly for years.
Wyatt Earp over Tombstone?
As for me I'll give the genres I don't really care for. Romance and most horror.
Bogart,Tracy,Hanks and Ford have shown they can play a wide range of characters. I love Peter Lorrie but in pretty much every film he played Peter Lorrie.
And most of the actors random73 mentioned fit in with the old school I was talking about. They did the job, got paid, and the studio decided if they were movie stars in addition. That Walsall carefully crafted and cultivated.
Hanks is an actor.
Ford used to be an actor.
An actor performs as an art, has substance and meaning.
A movie star,we should be calling celebrity, has a crafted career that requires no acting, just living the lifestyle.
Hanks is famous and popular but also puts effort into his craft.
Will smith does not.
Tom Hanks is Tom Hanks in any movie I see him in. Castaway? It's Tom Hanks working for FedEx. The DaVinci Code? Look at that horrible haircut on Tom Hanks. Big? Hey, it's Tom Hanks as a kid in a man's body. Saving Private Ryan? Tom Hanks is in the army now! Now having said all this, I have nothing against Tom Hanks. Lord knows I've seen enough of his movies (and enjoyed them)...but I've never pretended for a second that he was so immersed in his character that he was anything but Tom Hanks. Yes, even in Road to Perdition.
Ford? Never an actor. He'd probably be the first to tell you that. My dream movie is a Harrison Ford, Bill Paxton, Bill Pullman movie - I'd call it "Monotone Delivery". ;)
And to be fair...really, they're ALL actors. An actor is a job. Hell, *I've* been an actor before, and I suck! Only a handful are true artists, though.
And yes, Tombstone was about as factual to the real thing (take it from a resident) as Police Academy was to actual law enforcement. Great for quotes though...
Now that's my kind of hyperbole!
Towns person: so? I've got lotsa friends!
Doc: I don't.
It's a nocturne.
A what?
You know...Fredric Fucking Chopin?
Harrison Ford? He always plays the same guy in every movie...except he's lost the ability to smirk like Han Solo with age.
While I prefer character actors, and by that I mean the sorts of actors who put aside vanity and persona and put the writing and the role first, I also have great respect for the sorts of people who have that sort of screen presence the camera loves and use it well. It is one thing to be the life of the party, or to be merely attractive. But to have presence- whether it is close to their own personality and energy or not, who knows- and be able to carry a story with it under the artificial and technical circumstances of acting on camera in a way that compels an audience? That's not nothing.
I do think what some might call "star" acting doesn't age as well as other acting, because like the music of a certain period I think it appeals most strongly to the period it was speaking to. Later it might seem mannered, too big, or too fake. But, then, often so does the fashion of the period, or even the speaking style of a period (just listen back to what radio broadcasters of the 40s or 50s sound like compared to now).
But just because it doesn't age as well, and just because I don't prefer it in the performances that I want to watch doesn't mean that I think it is worthless. Or easy.
If you think having star power on camera is easy, my response is: try it. See if you can even be relaxed and comfortable enough to be yourself on camera. You might find that even that is not as easy as it seems. And that is before all the rest of the technology, people, and given circumstances of the story are added. Add all those, and even 'just being yourself' actually becomes harder and harder to do.
It is not as simple as showing up and looking good. Often these are actors who know exactly what they are doing, and they are doing it on purpose. Watch where they put their eyes. Watch their understanding of just how close or wide of a shot they are in. Watch their control over their physicality. For the ones that have had long careers with consistent success, I would imagine a lot of work by them and their team went into understanding their persona well enough to first seek out and pursue the right roles, and later to know what to pick and champion from what was being offered. I'm not saying it is brain surgery, but there is certainly more to it all than just "lifestyle". There are celebrities who made a splash on mere lifestyle. But I would be curious if a single one of them- when someone built a movie around them- actually succeeded in doing the work of carrying a movie. Because there is a difference. There is work and skill involved.
Again, there are actors who I think work even harder than those who start with more natural gifts, and those are the ones I respect most, but I think a lot of presumption goes into thinking that star acting is not acting, or not work. I don't seek out John Wayne movies, for example, but I do respect that a huge audience found him compelling in his time. And it is not like that audience didn't have other choices. Heck, that was back at a time when far more films were being made. There were actually more stars to compete with- and not just behind the scenes, but on competing screens. To have engaged that many audience members over a long career actually took a lot of skill and a lot of acting. I think he just made it look easy.