That's exactly what we are talking about. There ARE great actors these days, no doubt. It just that they are not on the screen, because Kristen Stewart is there and there is no more space left.
What everybody thinks of Andrew Garfield?
I'm not that into Andrew Garfield. Big props to him in hiding his British accent. I totally believed that he was American in "The Social Network." But otherwise, not wow-ed. He wasn't a very good Spiderman. He tried to hard to play up nerdiness.
Kristen Stewart - who has been acting for, like, ever - is actually a strong actor. I've never seen the neck-biters, but I have seen "Lost in the Wild", "Adventureland" and "On the Road". If she hadn't lucked into a megahit, I doubt anyone would question her talent.
author of "Acting In Hollywood: A Newcomer's Guide"
I guess my opinion of Andrew Garfield is based more on his work in "Death of Salesman" on stage rather than his film work. That's where my opinion comes from.
I have always strongly disliked Kristen Stewart's work, long before she was even famous for Twilight. I consistently (in every film I've seen of hers) find her acting choices boring, safe, and just not bringing the script to life to its full potential.
I think her success primarily comes from the fact that awkward teenagers can project themselves onto her, being such a blank slate. Which in a way, can be sort of a kind of talent...getting out of the way and letting the audiences fill-in your character for you, but I've always found it uninteresting to watch. I can't sit through Twilight.
I never watched another Gosling film after his craptacular performance in The Notebook. One of the greatest love stories in the history of cinema has some of the worst acting in a love scene. He's the only one that didn't fit....
**James Garner, Gena Rowlands, and Rachel McAdams were all great.
Though I haven't seen the others, Adventureland wasn't really acting for her. She is a stoner and she has cheated with a married man.
I am all for the 30 plus actors. The 40 plus are better and forward. The young ones do not hold well. I feel bad for them because they are being manipulated and soon burn themselves out or wake up one day wonder who they and ask where are they...And wish they had more control of their careers when they where being pushed.
Sorry that's how I see it.
I am for mature actors and indie films are good too!
author of "Acting In Hollywood: A Newcomer's Guide"
I don't think Kristen is a total hack or anything. She's just decent and there are hundreds of actresses in Hollywood and New York her age that are just as good or better that don't have a pot to piss in and a lot of them are better looking. The question here is who got recognized as GREAT in the last decade?
Charlize Theron is the only one I can think of that broke into the great screen actress category in her 20s with "Monster" in 2003. She would have been 26 or 27 when she shot that but had also been doing great work in supporting roles in big films and leading roles in smaller films for a few years before. She def wasn't a newcomer. She is also the rarest kind of combination of talent and looks that exists in God's world. Total freak of nature. The funny thing is that even she would have been stuck with a life of pretty young thing roles if it weren't for J.J. Harris managing her career from the beginning. I saw an interview where she and J.J. said that the producers would have made "Monster" all about she and Christina Ricci making out if they had not gotten in on the production team! haha
I think Phillip Seymour Hoffman is the best American actor in cinema, but he was in his late 30s when he hit with "Capote" in 2005. Look at all the supporting roles he did before that.
Viola Davis is another great actress who had been around for years mainly doing theatre before she finally got recognized for throwing down with the Meryl in "Doubt." She was over 40.
Cate Blanchett is the only great I can think of that was under 30 and a total newcomer on the international scene when she hit with "Elizabeth" in the late 1990s, but even she was a star on Australian tv first.
P.S. If anybody wants to say that any of those actors are not great, I have nothing to talk to you about! haha
gyokoren, I'm sure nobody is going to argue with you
I was just wondering if there is any GREAT talent that came into the screen in 00's? The ones you've mentioned, they were acting before.
Not sure what you mean.
Any GREAT talent with a breakout performance that led to a string of great projects had already been acting before, and often for a lot longer than most people will ever let on.
Even the young ones.
Those who "break out" in their 20s tended to have been pursuing acting since they were kids (or even as toddlers) - booking small roles and commercials.
From Joseph Gordon Levitt to Jennifer Lawrence to Jaoquin Phoenix to even the Twilight gang - they've been pursuing it since they were kids (or at least in their early teens). Even a lot of the Aussie actors you see have been acting a while in their home country before being "introduced" to the US.
If you're talking 'new faces' in their 20s that didn't work much before, you'll find more of it on TV.
Michele Williams was a series regular/lead on Dawson's Creek, years before becoming one of the most respected young film actresses right now.
And then there's guys like Taylor Kitsch - I don't think he did much if at all before Friday Night Lights. And since then, he's been unfortunate to have been in too many big budget flops. Could be a case of the guy having leading man potential, but his agent/management team pushing him a bit too early because he's not yet seasoned/experienced enough to carry a film. Or just in hindsight choosing the wrong projects. It happens.
It'll be interesting to see what happens to the Glee kids and how their careers progress beyond the show, since for many of them, they didn't have a whole lot of experience before the show.
Kiera Knightly, although I recognize she's not everyone's cup of tea? Marion Cotilliard? Don't know how long she was around in France before she broke in the US...I'm guessing a long time.
Listen, the bottom line is that eventually ALL of this will go away...just like the opera did...just like live theatre is doing. Somewhere in the distant or not-too-distant future, movies will go away too. Everything will be interactive virtual reality.
Definitely not looking forward to that.
I don't think that will happen any time soon and only on the level of mass entertainment when it does. Moviemaking as an art form is still in its infancy and its real potential has not yet even begun to be explored. Humanity has a need for the great artists and storytellers who have been with us for all of our history and this is our greatest medium since a great film involves a synergy of all the arts. Will it change? Yes. The economic model on which commercial films are made is unsustainable and I agree with donquixote that the days of the huge megawatt movie star being their selling point are coming to an end.
The thing is, it was never really about them. It is the great visionary directors like Kubrick and Godard and many more to come who will go down in history with the Shakespeares, Tolstoys, Picassos, Mozarts and Da Vincis. The actors will only be a footnote like Burbage to Shakespeare or a particular color in Monet's pallet. But there will be a need for us as long as there is a need to breathe real humanity into these creations. There just won't be as much money for the lucky few.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3|