The differences may seem subtle, but Brosnan and Clooney simply don't have the look for the era. You may not see it, and that's fine, but their features and demeanor just aren't up to snuff. That doesn't mean they can't be dressed up in period clothing or given period hairstyles, but in the same way Natalie Portman or Winona Ryder will never be Audrey Hepburn, Brosnan and Clooney will never be Cary Grant, Tyrone Power, or Gregory Peck. Comparing them to such is laughable.
What do you mean their features aren't up to snuff?
They look like actors of the past few decades rather than the ones who preceded them.
What's the aesthetic differences between the past and present actors?
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Again, all highly subjective. Looking like a rat appeals better to one generation over another, but "rat" implies something negative and yet entire generations have swooned over a certain actor we know who looks like a rat. It’s so easy to revere stars who’ve passed into legendary status, i.e., those long dead, but I guess it’s difficult or impossible for some people to concede praise to extremely popular celebrities still in their prime (especially those deemed as threateningly good looking) because for whatever reason, it’s “personal" especially as it relates to feelings of inadequacies, lol! Am I shooting in the dark? I just can't think of any other reasonable motivation behind a staunchly worded (and many ones at that) argument in response to a throwaway comment of Brosnan fitting in among the golden age of Hollywood actors.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Wow, now it's implied that I'm a woman...as if that's a bad thing ) There are easier ways to ask me out and it's no longer frowned upon
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Excellent post! The concept of leading actors certainly has evolved from the classic era. I suppose today one must land a role in a major franchise to become a leading actor. Personally I'd like to see this current era transition into something else. A 50 something year old Tom Cruise, I'd find far more interesting if he were playing roles his own age. You really don't see many human interest dramas along the lines of, say, FIVE EASY PIECES for actors today. Then again, perhaps I've gotten so burned out on the countless franchises, comic book films, etc, I've stopped paying attention to what else might be out there?
Thanks! I'd agree about Cruise, but that's going to be tough since he came through that 1980s/1990s era, where boyish looking men were selected to be leading men. He's lucky in that, like Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio, he retains a youthful quality, but he'll never age into a man like, say, John Wayne or Robert Mitchum did.
In some ways, it's easier to see the distinctions between old school actors and those in transition by looking at the differences between Cary Grant and Sean Connery. Here are two photos that show what might be considered subtle but meaningful differences that casting people, in particular, would be looking for, even if the men are relatively similar physical types.
Both are tall, dark-haired, handsome, and Caucasian, with no obvious physical flaws, but you can see that Connery has a pointier, slightly less refined nose and profile, bushier features, bigger ears, wider set eyes, and a larger mouth. Ironically, though he was a body builder, his jaw actually seems a little less developed in the photo than Grant's, though perhaps age has something to do with it. There's a smarmy look to Connery's eyes (which he used to great effect not just in Bond but in most roles he had during the era) that give him a cockier, more predatory quality than Grant, even when Grant played the villain and projected darkness.
My mother, who saw the Bond films in theaters when initially released, said she and her friends thought Connery was rat-like when he appeared onscreen. It was only after Goldfinger and Connery being everywhere in photos and such that she began to soften on whether he was really all that handsome.
Actors say a lot with their eyes, and the ability to project those inner qualities becomes the hallmark of their performances, but casting directors in the studio system, where it was expected actors would fit into certain "types." looked for both inner and outer characteristics natural to the actors. Think about how, say, Jack Nicholson, for instance, always has a kind of manic quality in his eyes that have defined him or Robert DeNiro always looks suspicious.
Today, the popular thinking is that the actor is merely a blank canvas who then becomes a character, but one of the reasons I don't buy a lot of performances by contemporary actors is a lot of them don't escape whatever natural qualities they have to try to become what they think the character is. That's why, for instance, I'd never cast Brosnan as, say, Atticus Finch, even though Brosnan is also tall, dark-haired, etc. Gregory Peck has everything the character represents, not just in his physical features but in what he seems to project naturally -- intelligence, sensitivity, nobility, fatherhood. Brosnan doesn't. I'd say the same for Tom Cruise, who's made an entire career out of playing the same hyper, arrogant guy in every movie he's made. But at least he accepts his limitations.
Before anyone says that's a fluke because Peck was born to play the role, I'd say he was equally effective as Keith Mallory in The Guns of Navarone and as Joe Bradley in Roman Holiday. There's a kind of calm decency that resides in Peck that comes out in his performances, even if the characters are edgier. It helps that he's an almost impossibly handsome man, like a statue, but it also explains why he falters when trying to play characters with truly dark qualities and is rarely successful, the successes only happening when he's very young (Duel in the Sun) and very old (The Boy from Brazil), where the entire production is weighted toward propping up the performances. He still had to work hard against type. When he tries to play characters that are much muddier internally, especially later in his career, it just doesn't work (I Walk the Line is a good example).
These may all seem trivial, almost inconceivable distinctions, but like I said, they're what keep the wannabes from being the real thing. It's why there will only ever be one Audrey Hepburn, Cary Grant, or John Wayne but plenty of imitators that fall far short. At the same time, I could exchange Matt Damon for practically any white actor of average proportions and get pretty much the same effect.
Good comparisons between Sean and Cary. Definitely at that time the concept of the leading man was slowly beginning to transition. Sean is definitely more raw and edgy in appearance. I'd say by GF and TB he was starting to look more streamlined compared to his earlier films (especially Darby O Gill).
Gregory Peck playing against type kind of reminds me when of Spencer Tracy played Jekyll and Hyde. At the time his performance wasn't exactly widely praised, though possibly due to comparisons with Fredric March, whose version of that story was only 10 years previous. I also think by then audiences were long accustomed to Tracy in roles like Boys Town, and may have not wanted to see his darker side.
I believe his acting style was pretty much to play himself, but in his character's situation. I personally like his Jekyll/Hyde performance. I agree about today's actors not escaping their natural qualities. I also feel today an actor would be cast in an iconic role despite their lack of suitability for the part. Yet, they'd still often be praised for their performance. To be honest I never felt Robert Downey Jr was Sherlock Holmes in the least, but I wouldn't say he gave a particularly bad performance. If Brosnan ever were to be cast as Atticus Fitch, he'd probably still seem the like the Brosnan of, say, Laws of Attraction.
That's a good point about Tracy. He carved out a career playing irascible but basically good-hearted men. He's so much so that his less-successful doppelganger, James Whitmore, played the same kinds of parts.
Casting him -- or any actor -- against type occasionally works because of the contrast, but it mostly works with actors who don't seem to have much natural charisma or personality to begin with. Daniel Day-Lewis or Meryl Streep would be good examples. It's not so much they are method actors as it is they really don't have the qualities to be movie stars, their talent notwithstanding. This makes it easier for them to be chameleons. But they are so good at it, they overcome their limitations, which is quite rare.
I agree about Downey -- I've never been a big fan, and to me, he's the same in everything. But he brought a kind of manic energy to a semi-comedic version of Holmes. It was really the production, designed around him, that made the films work, helped immensely by Jude Law as one of the few fairly accurate representations of Watson on screen. But as Holmes himself, Downey never seemed physically convincing.
That's a good point about Tracy. He carved out a career playing irascible but basically good-hearted men. He's so much so that his less-successful doppelganger, James Whitmore, played the same kinds of parts.
Casting him -- or any actor -- against type occasionally works because of the contrast, but it mostly works with actors who don't seem to have much natural charisma or personality to begin with. Daniel Day-Lewis or Meryl Streep would be good examples. It's not so much they are method actors as it is they really don't have the qualities to be movie stars, their talent notwithstanding. This makes it easier for them to be chameleons. But they are so good at it, they overcome their limitations, which is quite rare.
I agree about Downey -- I've never been a big fan, and to me, he's the same in everything. But he brought a kind of manic energy to a semi-comedic version of Holmes. It was really the production, designed around him, that made the films work, helped immensely by Jude Law as one of the few fairly accurate representations of Watson on screen. But as Holmes himself, Downey never seemed physically convincing.
I might have been more interested in those Holmes films had Jude Law and Downey Jr switched roles. I'd agree about Daniel Day Lewis and Meryl Streep. The don't quite come across as movie stars, but actors very dedicated to their craft. I'm sure they work very hard to overcome their limitations, and the results end up on the screen.
Comments
(I'd guessed that you quoted the wrong message!)
Good comparisons between Sean and Cary. Definitely at that time the concept of the leading man was slowly beginning to transition. Sean is definitely more raw and edgy in appearance. I'd say by GF and TB he was starting to look more streamlined compared to his earlier films (especially Darby O Gill).
Gregory Peck playing against type kind of reminds me when of Spencer Tracy played Jekyll and Hyde. At the time his performance wasn't exactly widely praised, though possibly due to comparisons with Fredric March, whose version of that story was only 10 years previous. I also think by then audiences were long accustomed to Tracy in roles like Boys Town, and may have not wanted to see his darker side.
I believe his acting style was pretty much to play himself, but in his character's situation. I personally like his Jekyll/Hyde performance. I agree about today's actors not escaping their natural qualities. I also feel today an actor would be cast in an iconic role despite their lack of suitability for the part. Yet, they'd still often be praised for their performance. To be honest I never felt Robert Downey Jr was Sherlock Holmes in the least, but I wouldn't say he gave a particularly bad performance. If Brosnan ever were to be cast as Atticus Fitch, he'd probably still seem the like the Brosnan of, say, Laws of Attraction.
Casting him -- or any actor -- against type occasionally works because of the contrast, but it mostly works with actors who don't seem to have much natural charisma or personality to begin with. Daniel Day-Lewis or Meryl Streep would be good examples. It's not so much they are method actors as it is they really don't have the qualities to be movie stars, their talent notwithstanding. This makes it easier for them to be chameleons. But they are so good at it, they overcome their limitations, which is quite rare.
I agree about Downey -- I've never been a big fan, and to me, he's the same in everything. But he brought a kind of manic energy to a semi-comedic version of Holmes. It was really the production, designed around him, that made the films work, helped immensely by Jude Law as one of the few fairly accurate representations of Watson on screen. But as Holmes himself, Downey never seemed physically convincing.
I might have been more interested in those Holmes films had Jude Law and Downey Jr switched roles. I'd agree about Daniel Day Lewis and Meryl Streep. The don't quite come across as movie stars, but actors very dedicated to their craft. I'm sure they work very hard to overcome their limitations, and the results end up on the screen.