[jhm731]

Letterman, Hoffman, Zeppelin honored by Obama:

Robert De Niro saluted Hoffman, saying he had changed acting, never took any shortcuts and was brave enough to be a perfectionist.

"Before Dustin burst on the scene, it was pretty much OK for movie stars to show up, read their lines and, if the director insisted, act a little," De Niro said. "But then Dustin came along — and he just had to get everything right."

[Folsom]

I think a historically accurate version would blow people's minds because of how incredibly complicated everything happened to be. To make it not black or white, to show that common history on the subjects undermines how good or bad we contemporarley think of the civil war arguments etc. The fact that the war wasn't about slavery, and slavery wasn't like (or just like) what they told us in school, should be enough to bring the fascination.

Anyway, whether anyone cares about history or not, sad fact is a lot of people are going to regard movie as the first history lesson they care to remember.

[jhm731]

[wushuliu]

This is why I'll never consider guys like Bruce Willis, Denzel Washington, Ben Affleck, and some of the other more popular actors of the day as "great actors". They make films that people enjoy, and they tend to do a solid job in their roles, but they are not great character actors by any means....and I tend to put the character actor on a higher pedestal. You just explained my criteria PERFECTLY...for those two hours, you dont' think for a minute about the actor you're watching...you only think of, and you only see, the character. Daniel Day Lewis...Cate Blanchett...Phillip Seymour Hoffman...Dustin Hoffman...Meryl Streep....DeNiro (back in the day...not so much anymore)...etc. These are all actors who have successfully immersed into a role to the degree where they transcended themselves, so to speak lol.

Going to disagree vehemently. Willis, Washington (WTF Ben Affleck? Wha?), ARE great actors. They are OUTSTANDING actors. Just because someone does the 'method' immersion well doesn't make them a great actor - it's like the extreme audio 'objective' stance of measurements being the defining factor. The degree to which a person is able to convince you they are someone else in physicality, mannerism, etc. does not necessarily mean they are phenomenal actors. Look at Brando. Brando was never a method actor. Never. You don't look at Streetcar, Waterfront, GF, etc. and go well he just lost himself in that character. What you see is he brilliantly defines the character - often in very theatrical ways, which is the total opposite of immersion. What's realistic about Terry Malloy's guyliner and eyebrow makeover? Olivier was not an immersive, method actor either. In fact Brando and Olivier are more alike in technique than not. And those are the two titans arguably of the 20th century.

It's about the ability to convince you they are that role - and the criteria for that is infinite and varied and subjective. Also remember another reason why charactor actors are favorable is because they get the best lines. That's why those roles are coveted in prestige films. They are often the best written and most flesh out charactors to begin with. It takes an entire other skill set to be a leading man and it is arguably much harder. Val Kilmer is a brilliant actor but the guy can't do what Willis does. Norton is another great actor but he can't do it either - unless it's a charactor actor role as lead (Illusionist). It's a totally different skill set. Love him or hate him Cruise is a great actor. Damon is a GREAT actor. Washington is frickin' phenomenal because he DOES BOTH. He could be racking accolades playing Cheadle-type scene stealing supporting roles, but he doesn't have to. He can be the leading man AND get an Oscar nod with a snap of his fingers. Robert Downey Jr., the same if he wanted to. THAT is talent.

[wushuliu]

I think a historically accurate version would blow people's minds because of how incredibly complicated everything happened to be. To make it not black or white, to show that common history on the subjects undermines how good or bad we contemporarley think of the civil war arguments etc. The fact that the war wasn't about slavery, and slavery wasn't like (or just like) what they told us in school, should be enough to bring the fascination.

Anyway, whether anyone cares about history or not, sad fact is a lot of people are going to regard movie as the first history lesson they care to remember.

Unless you were there you have no idea what REALLY HAPPENED. And the last sentence makes no sense.

[Tyson]

Going to disagree vehemently. Willis, Washington (WTF Ben Affleck? Wha?), ARE great actors. They are OUTSTANDING actors. Just because someone does the 'method' immersion well doesn't make them a great actor - it's like the extreme audio 'objective' stance of measurements being the defining factor. The degree to which a person is able to convince you they are someone else in physicality, mannerism, etc. does not necessarily mean they are phenomenal actors. Look at Brando. Brando was never a method actor. Never. You don't look at Streetcar, Waterfront, GF, etc. and go well he just lost himself in that character. What you see is he brilliantly defines the character - often in very theatrical ways, which is the total opposite of immersion. What's realistic about Terry Malloy's guyliner and eyebrow makeover? Olivier was not an immersive, method actor either. In fact Brando and Olivier are more alike in technique than not. And those are the two titans arguably of the 20th century.

It's about the ability to convince you they are that role - and the criteria for that is infinite and varied and subjective. Also remember another reason why charactor actors are favorable is because they get the best lines. That's why those roles are coveted in prestige films. They are often the best written and most flesh out charactors to begin with. It takes an entire other skill set to be a leading man and it is arguably much harder. Val Kilmer is a brilliant actor but the guy can't do what Willis does. Norton is another great actor but he can't do it either - unless it's a charactor actor role as lead (Illusionist). It's a totally different skill set. Love him or hate him Cruise is a great actor. Damon is a GREAT actor. Washington is frickin' phenomenal because he DOES BOTH. He could be racking accolades playing Cheadle-type scene stealing supporting roles, but he doesn't have to. He can be the leading man AND get an Oscar nod with a snap of his fingers. Robert Downey Jr., the same if he wanted to. THAT is talent.

Excellent points and I agree almost completely.  The whole "character actor vs leading actor" is a worthwhile topic all on it's own...

[ajzepp]

Going to disagree vehemently. Willis, Washington (WTF Ben Affleck? Wha?), ARE great actors. They are OUTSTANDING actors. Just because someone does the 'method' immersion well doesn't make them a great actor - it's like the extreme audio 'objective' stance of measurements being the defining factor. The degree to which a person is able to convince you they are someone else in physicality, mannerism, etc. does not necessarily mean they are phenomenal actors. Look at Brando. Brando was never a method actor. Never. You don't look at Streetcar, Waterfront, GF, etc. and go well he just lost himself in that character. What you see is he brilliantly defines the character - often in very theatrical ways, which is the total opposite of immersion. What's realistic about Terry Malloy's guyliner and eyebrow makeover? Olivier was not an immersive, method actor either. In fact Brando and Olivier are more alike in technique than not. And those are the two titans arguably of the 20th century.

It's about the ability to convince you they are that role - and the criteria for that is infinite and varied and subjective. Also remember another reason why charactor actors are favorable is because they get the best lines. That's why those roles are coveted in prestige films. They are often the best written and most flesh out charactors to begin with. It takes an entire other skill set to be a leading man and it is arguably much harder. Val Kilmer is a brilliant actor but the guy can't do what Willis does. Norton is another great actor but he can't do it either - unless it's a charactor actor role as lead (Illusionist). It's a totally different skill set. Love him or hate him Cruise is a great actor. Damon is a GREAT actor. Washington is frickin' phenomenal because he DOES BOTH. He could be racking accolades playing Cheadle-type scene stealing supporting roles, but he doesn't have to. He can be the leading man AND get an Oscar nod with a snap of his fingers. Robert Downey Jr., the same if he wanted to. THAT is talent.

I never used the term "method acting". That's not what I'm talking about at all. In fact, you said the exact same thing I said in your post...you said what makes them great is "the ability to convince you they are that role".  That is the same thing I'm saying. The problem is that you can take five clips of any of the actors I mentioned, from five different films, where there are no queues in the scene (set, supporting actors, etc) to give it a way, and their performance will be so similar from one to the next that you don't know which role they are in at the time. I'm not talking about method acting....I'm talking about RANGE. You're exactly right about Cruise and Damon. They have exhibited a ton of range in their careers. 

As for the leading man thing, I dont' believe for a second that those roles go to the best actors. They go to the most popular actors who generate the most buttage in the seats. That's why most of the best films these days (in terms of critical reception) are usually NOT the ones that make the most bank. Sometimes there is a very talented actor in the leading man role, sometimes not. The leading man is almost always very charismatic and likable, but I don't see at all that there is a correlation between great leading man and great actor.

[Folsom]

Unless you were there you have no idea what REALLY HAPPENED. And the last sentence makes no sense.

We don't know the exact language, but we know topics were not so black and white. Historical records of events, and who was at many of them, appear accurate enough.

Here is an interesting example. In the movie Lincoln they show native American's on the North's side. But they didn't show them on the confederate side. What we know to be true is they fought on both sides.

The history on this stuff is rich. Things are way more interesting than most people know. For example a lot of freed black slaves wandered around with nothing to do and tried to return to their former plantation where they often lived a better life than a lot of the common working class (not the aristocracy, obviously).

In a way, this is to history like what a movie Bose made is to audio.

[ajzepp]

We don't know the exact language, but we know topics were not so black and white. Historical records of events, and who was at many of them, appear accurate enough.

Here is an interesting example. In the movie Lincoln they show native American's on the North's side. But they didn't show them on the confederate side. What we know to be true is they fought on both sides.

The history on this stuff is rich. Things are way more interesting than most people know. For example a lot of freed black slaves wandered around with nothing to do and tried to return to their former plantation where they often lived a better life than a lot of the common working class (not the aristocracy, obviously).

In a way, this is to history like what a movie Bose made is to audio.

I'm not a history guy at all, but there is something I'm curious about for those who are: It seems to me that whenever a movie, book, tv show, etc that deals with historical facts comes about, there are always those who will cite historical inaccuracies. But when I look into what some of them may or may not be, it seems to turn into the same type of debate that usually is reserved for the topic of religion. Is there REALLY some agreed upon standard and account of the various events of our past? Just talking about the U.S. for right now...to keep it simple. Is there really a standard view by historians of who Abraham Lincoln was, what his motivations were, what he did or did not do, etc, etc., or is there disagreement even among the most educated of scholars? Cause from the perspective of someone like myself (someone who was writing notes to girls during history class), it sure seems like there is a whole lot of subjectivity and confusion on some of these topics.

[wushuliu]

I never used the term "method acting". That's not what I'm talking about at all. In fact, you said the exact same thing I said in your post...

Ok, my bad. I was going off the 'immersion' and 'transcend' descriptions which are often aligned with that style of acting and most of the actors you mentioned.

The problem is that you can take five clips of any of the actors I mentioned, from five different films, where there are no queues in the scene (set, supporting actors, etc) to give it a way, and their performance will be so similar from one to the next that you don't know which role they are in at the time. I'm not talking about method acting....I'm talking about RANGE.

That part I disagree, though I see what you're saying. Damon for instance I think has a limited range (although he keeps getting better and better), but he leverages the hell out of his strengths. An example of a smart actor vs. a gifted one. I disagree on guys like Willis, etc. Kurt Russell is another example. They make it look easy, and it isn't. Likability mixed with vulnerability, etc. isn't something any actor can do even the great ones. Gary Oldman? Love him to death, but no. Robert Redford is a great actor, but is purely a leading man. Talk about an actor that can steal a scene without doing anything at all (aka most of the The Natural). But he can't (or won't) do anything but leading man roles. He knows his limitations.

At any rate as Tyson said, leading man vs. character actor is a whole other discussion.

[wushuliu]

I'm not a history guy at all, but there is something I'm curious about for those who are: It seems to me that whenever a movie, book, tv show, etc that deals with historical facts comes about, there are always those who will cite historical inaccuracies. But when I look into what some of them may or may not be, it seems to turn into the same type of debate that usually is reserved for the topic of religion. Is there REALLY some agreed upon standard and account of the various events of our past? Just talking about the U.S. for right now...to keep it simple. Is there really a standard view by historians of who Abraham Lincoln was, what his motivations were, what he did or did not do, etc, etc., or is there disagreement even among the most educated of scholars? Cause from the perspective of someone like myself (someone who was writing notes to girls during history class), it sure seems like there is a whole lot of subjectivity and confusion on some of these topics.

Yeah, I agree. It's a mess. There is no standard. One the one hand there is a staggering amount of contemporary documentation about the Civil War, but on the other hand... you've got a staggering amount of contemporary opinions about the Civil War. If there was no consensus about the War when it was taking place, it's impossible to develop one now... This is what makes the Ken Burns doc so seminal - yes it has it's own narrative and view, but hearing all the first hand accounts and viewmpoints make more of an impact than one person's defining account of what *really* happened.

[ajzepp]

Ok, my bad. I was going off the 'immersion' and 'transcend' descriptions which are often aligned with that style of acting and most of the actors you mentioned.

That part I disagree, though I see what you're saying. Damon for instance I think has a limited range (although he keeps getting better and better), but he leverages the hell out of his strengths. An example of a smart actor vs. a gifted one. I disagree on guys like Willis, etc. Kurt Russell is another example. They make it look easy, and it isn't. Likability mixed with vulnerability, etc. isn't something any actor can do even the great ones. Gary Oldman? Love him to death, but no. Robert Redford is a great actor, but is purely a leading man. Talk about an actor that can steal a scene without doing anything at all. But he can't (or won't) do anything but leading man roles.

At any rate as Tyson said, leading man vs. character actor is a whole other discussion.

Yeah, it all comes down to how we define things....but I've seen method actors who could do a great job of "becoming" a character, but often times it ends up being like a caricature instead of a portrayal, if that makes any sense. Hell, even Daniel Day Lewis gets accused of being too over the top sometimes, and I think that sort of thing can detract from the role more than anything else. For the most part I think most would agree that DDL is one hell of an actor, though. My personal favorite, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, will SOMETIMES venture more to the method acting side, as we saw in Capote, but I just consider him a fantastic character actor. He can intimidate the hell out of you as a villain in MI:3 you have no idea what he's capable of doing next, or jump into the smitten sound guy who embarrassingly stumbles over himself in Boogie Nights, and then take on the empathetic, shell-shocked, lost soul that you see in "Love Liza" (one of my favorite films). If there was an actor who embodies MY idea of a great character actor, it's this guy. Gosh, role after role after role, even just in the last five years or so....just an AMAZING amount of diversity in his characters. Contrast his roles in Pirate Radio, Moneyball, Ides of March, Jack Goes Boating, and The Savages. I'm pretty sure those are all within the last five years, and the range he has exhibited in just these films will blow your mind, man.

In my opinion, someone like Ben Affleck can't hold this guy's jock in terms of being an actor, but if you polled 100 people randomly about which guy they had more interest in knowing, especially TMZ type stuff like who they're dating, what sorts of interests they have when they're not working, whatever....I guarantee you Benny would just roll with it (no pun intended). Ben Affleck the person is a more socially interesting, popular, and charismatic person. He'll get everyones vote for homecoming king. But in terms of pure acting ability, he's Jackie Moon to PSH's Michael Jordan.

[ajzepp]

Yeah, I agree. It's a mess. There is no standard. One the one hand there is a staggering amount of contemporary documentation about the Civil War, but on the other hand... you've got a staggering amount of contemporary opinions about the Civil War. If there was no consensus about the War when it was taking place, it's impossible to develop one now... This is what makes the Ken Burns doc so seminal - yes it has it's own narrative and view, but hearing all the first hand accounts and viewmpoints make more of an impact than one person's defining account of what *really* happened.

Okay good, I guess it's not just me then lol.  It just seems like I see this all the time, and not just among people like myself....I see people with letters after their names arguing and debating about what did or didn't happen and why. Seems like a LOT of gray area when it comes to history.

[Randy]

I'm not a history guy at all, but there is something I'm curious about for those who are: It seems to me that whenever a movie, book, tv show, etc that deals with historical facts comes about, there are always those who will cite historical inaccuracies. But when I look into what some of them may or may not be, it seems to turn into the same type of debate that usually is reserved for the topic of religion. Is there REALLY some agreed upon standard and account of the various events of our past? Just talking about the U.S. for right now...to keep it simple. Is there really a standard view by historians of who Abraham Lincoln was, what his motivations were, what he did or did not do, etc, etc., or is there disagreement even among the most educated of scholars? Cause from the perspective of someone like myself (someone who was writing notes to girls during history class), it sure seems like there is a whole lot of subjectivity and confusion on some of these topics.

Here's a book for you to read.  Read the top two reviews at least.

http://www.amazon.com/Prelude-Greatness-Lincoln-Don-Fehrenbacher/dp/0804701202/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354579945&sr=1-3&keywords=don+fehrenbacher

[Folsom]

Yeah, I agree. It's a mess. There is no standard. One the one hand there is a staggering amount of contemporary documentation about the Civil War, but on the other hand... you've got a staggering amount of contemporary opinions about the Civil War. If there was no consensus about the War when it was taking place, it's impossible to develop one now... This is what makes the Ken Burns doc so seminal - yes it has it's own narrative and view, but hearing all the first hand accounts and viewmpoints make more of an impact than one person's defining account of what *really* happened.

The motives are the really hard part. A lot of the facts can represent motives in a lot of directions. Then there are clear lies. At no point would a scholar tell anyone the civil war started because of slavery. Once the topic surfaced there is no way to say whether the people involved (big players) were concerned with it as a primary topic or sought a vehicle for other intentions. Essentially there is good documentation of what the consequences to first using slavery as a topic to address the public with did, and then the consequences of the new freedom. What is really muddy is if the consequences of either were the intention, or secondary to the public declarations that were recorded about moral perpetuity. It comes down to things like do you follow the money trail, or do you prefer the just humanist reasoning.  That will mostly remain opinion since they kept that information secret. There might be an uncomfortable amount of support for a money trail, but there is either denial or lack of evidence. Then you have the issue of asking yourself what do you want to tell an 8 year old, that African American's were freed not because of moral reasons but economical ones? Not the kind of message you want children to aspire too really is it? But that doesn't mean you have to talk about it when they are 8....

[Folsom]

Here's a book for you to read.  Read the top two reviews at least.

http://www.amazon.com/Prelude-Greatness-Lincoln-Don-Fehrenbacher/dp/0804701202/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354579945&sr=1-3&keywords=don+fehrenbacher

The point not being discussed is that they were not talking about slavery as a moral debate (even though they used the moral points to gain support). That is the assumption we try to make, and they tried to use against people just like us at the time (common folk).

You might even argue Lincoln's success was because he was so moderate that he could be persuaded by the rich that participated or influenced politics.

[ajzepp]

Here's a book for you to read.  Read the top two reviews at least.

http://www.amazon.com/Prelude-Greatness-Lincoln-Don-Fehrenbacher/dp/0804701202/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354579945&sr=1-3&keywords=don+fehrenbacher

Thanks man, much appreciated...

[wushuliu]

In my opinion, someone like Ben Affleck can't hold this guy's jock in terms of being an actor, but if you polled 100 people randomly about which guy they had more interest in knowing, especially TMZ type stuff like who they're dating, what sorts of interests they have when they're not working, whatever....I guarantee you Benny would just roll with it (no pun intended). Ben Affleck the person is a more socially interesting, popular, and charismatic person. He'll get everyones vote for homecoming king. But in terms of pure acting ability, he's Jackie Moon to PSH's Michael Jordan.

LOL, dude where are you getting Ben Affleck from. It's not the late 90's anymore! He's not on anyone's leading man list. Not even he thinks he's that good of an actor. That's why he's directing. No one else will cast him.

PSH is very good. I do think Toby Jones smoked his Capote with Infamous though...

[ajzepp]

LOL, dude where are you getting Ben Affleck from. It's not the late 90's anymore! He's not on anyone's leading man list. Not even he thinks he's that good of an actor. That's why he's directing. No one else will cast him.

PSH is very good. I do think Toby Jones smoked his Capote with Infamous though...

lol, I'm just trying to illustrate my point! 

Haven't seen Infamous but seems to have a very interesting cast...will check that out.

Another actor who is really starting to fit into my group here....Tom Hardy. I thought the job he did in Bronson was really damn good. You'll never see Benny pull that off!  (lmao)

[wushuliu]

lol, I'm just trying to illustrate my point! 

Haven't seen Infamous but seems to have a very interesting cast...will check that out.

Another actor who is really starting to fit into my group here....Tom Hardy. I thought the job he did in Bronson was really damn good. You'll never see Benny pull that off!  (lmao)

Infamous is so-so as a movie, but Jones is terrific as Capote.

Yes, Tom Hardy is one to watch. He reminds me of Brando. He has a similar build and face and his physicality, the way he moves is very similar. I think he makes the similar choices as an actor too - that mix of theatricality and realism in his delivery and appearance. Even the Bane voice is totally the whacked out choice Brando would have made I think. I like the guy a lot.