Okay, owned, I didn't define what I mean by a generation
I guess it would have to be defined by when an actor comes of age or comes to attention, depending on when and how they enter the craft/business.
My favourite period of films is not, actually the Golden Era, but the Golden Age of Film (in Hollywood and everywhere else, the late 60s through early 80s. That genration (those genrations?) gave us a number of really great actors, really great character actors and a few good stars... but the material was also much better. Do we judge Al Pacino on his work in the Godfather I and II or The Devil's Advocate? I mean seriously.
So I guess my argument is that the crap material leads to a lot of crap actors getting a lot of work... like those yukky Wilsons that got me so het up in the first place.The real issue was the idiocy of the promotion that CS.net thought was was worth posting.
Why don't we see see serious actors like Marlon Brando or Montgomery Clift anymore, just to name two? I guess it's because there is no real theatre in the US anymore; actors are trained at universities and colleges specifically in film acting and then enter film and television bypassing what was once the apprenticeship of work on stage. And there are no more Arthur Millers, Tenessee Williams or Eugene ONeills. Theatre as a serious art form in America is dead, and it dragged film as a serious artform into the grave with it. Even Sam Shepard and David Mamet have abandoned theatre more or less for film and television, which is where I think you can find the best writing and the best acting overall.
As far as the greats of the current crop, Gary Sinise has been mentioned. He started in theatre. There is an early video production of True West, the Sam Shepard play, in which he holds his own against John Malkovitch, something he fails to do in Of Mice and Men (because Malky decided to lunch on the scenery and grazed away). But I haven't seen anything else that I've particulalry liked him in. Not that I'm following his career, those CSI shows are goofy music videos that make Miami Vice look like Serpico, and why, seriosuly why, does he always look like he's just sniffed someone else's gas?
Gary Oldman, also a theatre background is a great actor, but has fallen in his alcoholic (and post alcoholic) years into playing cartoonish villains. Possibly just poor material.
Depp and Sean Penn are capable but often very mannered.
Aaron Eckart - also started in theatre - did some good stuff with Neil Labute, and he is often very very good, certainly charismatic.
Catherine Keener and Parker Posey are both, I think, much better than most of the movies they are in.
Jeff Daniels - another Steppenwolf alum, along with Sinise, William Hurt, etc. is a very good actor, I think one of the best now at work, but he had his start on stage in the 70s and in film in the early eighties. Can we say that someone who's been plugging away for 20+ years is the currrent generation?
Some actrors do get better with age. I mentioned Bruce Willis in that context in another thread, but Tom Cruise becomes more insipid, more robotic with every film. He's just awful.
And finally, yes, some good performances are created by the editors, some are ruined by the editors. The directors job is to dramaturge, to press the text to life by directing his/her actors. Too many actors are "stars", and they won't be told. Too many directors are more concerned with what's cool, where the green screen goes, how it will play as a PS@ game, or whatever.
Okay, my boy's home sick, and he's crying, gotta run.
I think I responded to most of your responses. Thanks for hearing me out and entering the discussion. I'd love to hear more.
Cheers
I guess it would have to be defined by when an actor comes of age or comes to attention, depending on when and how they enter the craft/business.
My favourite period of films is not, actually the Golden Era, but the Golden Age of Film (in Hollywood and everywhere else, the late 60s through early 80s. That genration (those genrations?) gave us a number of really great actors, really great character actors and a few good stars... but the material was also much better. Do we judge Al Pacino on his work in the Godfather I and II or The Devil's Advocate? I mean seriously.
So I guess my argument is that the crap material leads to a lot of crap actors getting a lot of work... like those yukky Wilsons that got me so het up in the first place.The real issue was the idiocy of the promotion that CS.net thought was was worth posting.
Why don't we see see serious actors like Marlon Brando or Montgomery Clift anymore, just to name two? I guess it's because there is no real theatre in the US anymore; actors are trained at universities and colleges specifically in film acting and then enter film and television bypassing what was once the apprenticeship of work on stage. And there are no more Arthur Millers, Tenessee Williams or Eugene ONeills. Theatre as a serious art form in America is dead, and it dragged film as a serious artform into the grave with it. Even Sam Shepard and David Mamet have abandoned theatre more or less for film and television, which is where I think you can find the best writing and the best acting overall.
As far as the greats of the current crop, Gary Sinise has been mentioned. He started in theatre. There is an early video production of True West, the Sam Shepard play, in which he holds his own against John Malkovitch, something he fails to do in Of Mice and Men (because Malky decided to lunch on the scenery and grazed away). But I haven't seen anything else that I've particulalry liked him in. Not that I'm following his career, those CSI shows are goofy music videos that make Miami Vice look like Serpico, and why, seriosuly why, does he always look like he's just sniffed someone else's gas?
Gary Oldman, also a theatre background is a great actor, but has fallen in his alcoholic (and post alcoholic) years into playing cartoonish villains. Possibly just poor material.
Depp and Sean Penn are capable but often very mannered.
Aaron Eckart - also started in theatre - did some good stuff with Neil Labute, and he is often very very good, certainly charismatic.
Catherine Keener and Parker Posey are both, I think, much better than most of the movies they are in.
Jeff Daniels - another Steppenwolf alum, along with Sinise, William Hurt, etc. is a very good actor, I think one of the best now at work, but he had his start on stage in the 70s and in film in the early eighties. Can we say that someone who's been plugging away for 20+ years is the currrent generation?
Some actrors do get better with age. I mentioned Bruce Willis in that context in another thread, but Tom Cruise becomes more insipid, more robotic with every film. He's just awful.
And finally, yes, some good performances are created by the editors, some are ruined by the editors. The directors job is to dramaturge, to press the text to life by directing his/her actors. Too many actors are "stars", and they won't be told. Too many directors are more concerned with what's cool, where the green screen goes, how it will play as a PS@ game, or whatever.
Okay, my boy's home sick, and he's crying, gotta run.
I think I responded to most of your responses. Thanks for hearing me out and entering the discussion. I'd love to hear more.
Cheers
