Who's the better actor ?

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Sunday, August 16, 2009 16:46
VIEWED: 6401
PAGE 3 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

RIPWASH

Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
I have one rule of thumb when it comes to acting. Those that do comedy are the better actors. For the simple reason that their range is wider.

I still regard the scene in the Nutty Professor when Eddie murphy is sat around the dinner table with - what is it, 8 different versions of himself, and intereacting with each of them as though they are right there with him at that instance in time... As one of the best moments in acting. When you consider what was involved in a scene like that, the time in between takes, probably took a week or so to shoot! Yet when all edited together, it's seemless. Brilliant acting!... Hopkins couldn't a done that!

I have to agree with you on that point. Comedic actors do tend to have a wider range. You see far more dramatic actors who say that comedy is harder for them than the other way around. There is timing and natural instinct involved. That doesn't come naturally to everybody.

Take Robin Williams. Gulliard trained actor, but more well known for his stand-up comedy in the beginning. He eased into dramatic roles very casually. Tom Hanks, Jim Carrey are others - just to name a few. Tom Hanks has abandoned comedy all-together it seems and that's a real shame. You don't see very many actors on the other side of the spectrum that have made that transition. John Guilgud is a great Shakespearean actor who just also happened to be hilarious in "Arthur". Dustin Hoffman can do funny. DeNiro can do funny. But I think they'd rather stick to dramatic endeavors.

I think the true greats of our time, however, can very easily do both. And that's why a guy like Sam Rockwell falls easily into the top echelon in my book. He can do gut-busting funny (Galaxy Quest) or very scary, crazy mo-fo (The Green Mile).

Depp has more of a "quirk" to him. But he can also slide up and down the acting spectrum with relative ease.

Giamatti has a charm about him that's not particularly funny, per se. He can be downright funny, but it's in a charming way. If that makes sense. But his John Adams was top notch, no doubt about it.

Downey Jr. is a mite bit harder for me to classify, for some reason. In my opinion, he does more drama with a comedic flair.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, July 24, 2009 5:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

I still regard the scene in the Nutty Professor when Eddie murphy is sat around the dinner table with - what is it, 8 different versions of himself, and intereacting with each of them as though they are right there with him at that instance in time... As one of the best moments in acting. When you consider what was involved in a scene like that, the time in between takes, probably took a week or so to shoot! Yet when all edited together, it's seemless. Brilliant acting!... Hopkins couldn't a done that!

Most good actors prefer stage acting, and stage actors would strongly disagree with your assertion.

MANGOLO

Friday, July 24, 2009 7:47 AM

Hoffman in Charlie's War. Awesome.

We are negotiating with his agent tomorrow about him being one of the voices. He asked for the role!

>

THESOMNAMBULIST

Friday, July 24, 2009 8:40 AM

jewelstaitefan wrote:

Quote:
Most good actors prefer stage acting, and stage actors would strongly disagree with your assertion.

Most good actors? And who pray decides who most good actors are? You? Me? Other actors? The theatre going public...?

It's all just individual opinions.

In my (particular) opinion the best piece of acting I've seen is the one I mentioned. I don't happen to believe it will be regarded as so by the majority, but that is not the issue.

My appraisal of acting isn't grounded in any kind of instight. I'm not an actor, and I've never really studied acting. So I can't definitively claim to have the answer. It's just my viewpoint.

However I based my opinion on the idea that were another actor (Lets say stage actor for arguments sake) to attempt to do what Eddie Murphy did in the Nutty Professor, I wonder if that (stage) actor would manage to do it with quite the finesse that Eddie Murphy did. Of course we'll never know for sure, but I feel fairly confident that Eddie Murphy could go on stage and perform Othello, or Death of a salesman etc.

Who knows?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, July 24, 2009 8:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
jewelstaitefan wrote:

In my (particular) opinion the best piece of acting I've seen is the one I mentioned. I don't happen to believe it will be regarded as so by the majority, but that is not the issue.

However I based my opinion on the idea that were another actor (Lets say stage actor for arguments sake) to attempt to do what Eddie Murphy did in the Nutty Professor, I wonder if that (stage) actor would manage to do it with quite the finesse that Eddie Murphy did. Of course we'll never know for sure, but I feel fairly confident that Eddie Murphy could go on stage and perform Othello, or Death of a salesman etc.

Who knows?

As a young child, Elizabeth Taylor did a spot audition by grieving over her dead dog in moving fashion, the dog played by a ready mop. She became a child star, and beyond. Eddie as a grown man did little more than this, and editing covers up all his mistakes. Nutty Prof, or Distiguished Gentelman, or his other fliks are not monuments to acting, but feats of editing, continuity, and coordination, which are not the function of the actor. I prefer Mike Myers in So I Married an Axe Murderer, and his much better accent, but you can remain stuck on Eddie.

THESOMNAMBULIST

Friday, July 24, 2009 10:42 AM

jewlestaitefan wrote:

Quote:
As a young child, Elizabeth Taylor did a spot audition by grieving over her dead dog in moving fashion, the dog played by a ready mop. She became a child star, and beyond.

Did you see this performance, or have you been told about how good it was?

I suspect at various times though Eddie Murphy was acting to thin air in that table scene too. Would that qualify as a skill comparable to Elizabeth Taylor acting to a mop?

Quote:
Eddie as a grown man did little more than this, and editing covers up all his mistakes. Nutty Prof, or Distiguished Gentelman, or his other fliks are not monuments to acting, but feats of editing, continuity, and coordination, which are not the function of the actor. I prefer Mike Myers in So I Married an Axe Murderer, and his much better accent, but you can remain stuck on Eddie

Does he have to do more than what Elizabeth Taylor did to be considered a great actor? Can they both not be good actors?

Comparing Eddie Murphy to Elizabeth Taylor in this way does nothing to discredit Eddie Murphy it merely points out that yes Elizabeth Taylor is a great actress, I'm not contesting that, I'm merely saying that that scene he did around the table in Nutty Professor, was one of the best I've seen. I'm not saying he's the best actor in the world.

Also I would conceed that the tricks of cinema do allow poor acting to shine. Given editing, score etc. However by that very token it also demands a certain skill too. (you often hear how stage actors love going back to the theatre if they've done a turn on films, because they don't have to endure the multiple takes and re-takes that film-making demands) Maintaining character over such a prolonged period, over mulitple takes and cuts and in this case mulitple characters, enduring many a make-up change - to then restart a previous scene, and be able to mainting a character/characters rhythm over what must have been a considerable amount of time, is in itself a craft and a skill to be considered.

I'm not trying to be awkward here Jewelstaitefan but I formulated my point of view considering what was involved in that scene. I'm not stuck on Murphy at all, I like Mike Myers a great deal too and his turn as 'Dr Evil', 'Austin Powersx2' and 'Fat Bastard', all in the same scene in Austin Powers 2 is incredible as a performance. I think he is too a great actor.

For whatever reason the Nutty Professor struck a cord with me and I mentioned it. But there are of course many other great scenes in cinema history that hold their own and that doesn't necessarily mean they negate one another for doing so.

SERYN

Friday, July 24, 2009 12:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

I still regard the scene in the Nutty Professor when Eddie murphy is sat around the dinner table...

Most good actors prefer stage acting, and stage actors would strongly disagree with your assertion.

I wouldn't say most actors prefer the stage - if asked they'd probably say they like the variety. They would probably agree though that stage and film are two entirely different animals and require different skill sets. What Murphy did was a great example of those particular filmic skills. I recall dozens of interviews and behind the scenes docs. of actors talking about acting against green screen, or opposit a tennis ball on a stick or against themselves as Murphy did and it does take planning, patience, timing and skill. So irrespective of the type of movie it is anyone willing to engage in that and pulling it off successfully deserves some respect - I couldn't do it - could you?

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, July 24, 2009 12:11 PM

For my 2 cents, it's Tom Hanks. He's really been the greatest actor of the last 20 years. Whether it's drama or comedy, Hanks excels at every role. He has the ability to make you care about his characters, something that I find doesn't work for the majority of today's actors. Hanks never disappoints!

BORIS

Sunday, July 26, 2009 5:48 AM

Johnny Depp is best....I'm really looking forward to seeing his take on Dillinger in "Public Enemies"

SHINYGOODGUY

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:17 AM

He cast Heath Ledger as The Joker which really made a lot of folks raise their eyebrows. But Nolan really didn't want someone who's name stood out over their acting ability. Much like Nicholson in the '89 Batman. He was great, but it was Jack as the Joker. Heck he was even billed over Keaton. But with Nolan's The Dark Knight, what did we get? Simply one of the best villains in cinema. The Joker. Not Heath Ledger as the Joker. Does that make sense?
-----------------------------------------------
Makes perfect sense. I get what Caine was alluding to as well. Ledger disappeared into the character and gave everyone chills with his portrayal (well, I got chills). But Rap's question is a really tough one to answer because it's all subjective. I like all the actors listed, but I don't think, in the above-mentioned Dark Knight, that Paul Giamatti could pull it off. And I'm a big fan of his work - Sideways, The Lady in the Water (although LitW was not quite up to par for M. Night).

Cage is an enigma. He runs the course from annoying (the films you named above) to brilliant.
Have you seen: The Weather Man, Lord of War, World Trade Center, Bringing Out the Dead and, perhaps my favorite Cage movie - Adaptation. How can one actor be so good and be so bad from one film to another? You gotta admire his adventuresome spirit. BTW, I love National Treasure and him in it. Norton is another truly gifted actor, along with Hoffman (who was brilliant long ago except no one noticed, well....maybe other actors).

I'm going to mention 2 actors who can be as sharp as any out there today - Crowe and Spacey. Given the right role, they can be brilliant. I know, that can go for any of them. But still, Spacey and Crowe in L.A. Confidential. Spacey as the villian in Seven, and Crowe in Master and Commander.

My favorite all-time: Denzel.

SGG

Tawabawho?

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE