I would also offer Sean Penn. Personal life a mess, but he is an amazingly versatile actor.
I think that a truly great performer should be able to do comedy and drama equally well. Ones you've mentioned, Hanks and Hackman, come to mind; I might add (Michal) Keaton. I'm having trouble thinking of actresses who do both well, though.
I would agree that Sean Penn's (like him or not) film work stands up. If a list were made today of hollywood's best, for me, I think it would be a very short list. I would also agree with you George, that a good actor should be versatile in both comedies as well as dramas. . Robert DeNiro comes to mind. So versatile.
Take your Ryan Reynolds, or Brad Cooper's, or Chris Pine's. They are all good looking hunks who play heartthrobs for the ladies but they fall short imo when it comes to giving a truly worthwhile performance. They are mostly known for choosing comedies. I don't know if that's because that isall they are offered or not, and I find that hard to believe, but I think it suggests A: that hollywood has dried up and no longer cares about really good roles or B: that those actors aren't as versatile and haven't developed that kind of range to play really good roles. I never would have thought 15 or 20 years ago that George Clooney would come up in the conversation as a really good actor. But imo that's what he has done. He has developed that range in his acting and has become versatile at playing both arenas.
A growing trend for actors is to keep making movies together. I guess it makes sense, why not. If it ain't broke don't fix it right? The motivation is greedy. Fame, money all that.
This doesn't make a great actor or even a good one. Maybe it's not the actor's who are to blame. Maybe there's no great roles anymore?
I would also offer Sean Penn. Personal life a mess, but he is an amazingly versatile actor.
I think that a truly great performer should be able to do comedy and drama equally well. Ones you've mentioned, Hanks and Hackman, come to mind; I might add (Michal) Keaton. I'm having trouble thinking of actresses who do both well, though.
George
George, I think years ago, Goldy(SP?) Hawn could do comedy, or drama quite well.
On 10/21/2016 at 3:04 PM, Human without the bean said:
I would agree that Sean Penn's (like him or not) film work stands up. If a list were made today of hollywood's best, for me, I think it would be a very short list. I would also agree with you George, that a good actor should be versatile in both comedies as well as dramas. . Robert DeNiro comes to mind. So versatile.
Take your Ryan Reynolds, or Brad Cooper's, or Chris Pine's. They are all good looking hunks who play heartthrobs for the ladies but they fall short imo when it comes to giving a truly worthwhile performance. They are mostly known for choosing comedies. I don't know if that's because that isall they are offered or not, and I find that hard to believe, but I think it suggests A: that hollywood has dried up and no longer cares about really good roles or B: that those actors aren't as versatile and haven't developed that kind of range to play really good roles. I never would have thought 15 or 20 years ago that George Clooney would come up in the conversation as a really good actor. But imo that's what he has done. He has developed that range in his acting and has become versatile at playing both arenas.
Human, I'm sorry, but I don't know these actors. I think Samuel L. Jackson, and Morgan Freeman are great actors. Perhaps, a bit intense for some.
I would also offer Sean Penn. Personal life a mess, but he is an amazingly versatile actor.
I think that a truly great performer should be able to do comedy and drama equally well. Ones you've mentioned, Hanks and Hackman, come to mind; I might add (Michal) Keaton. I'm having trouble thinking of actresses who do both well, though.
George
George, I agree. Yes his personal life is messed up, but perhaps that is why he is such a good actor. George, his father was Matthew Penn, I think. Was Matthew an actor, or screen writer, or something along those lines?
When Sean Penn first hit the scene in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," it would have been easy to get typecast into burnout roles; but he went from there to a military school cadet in "TAPS" and a street thug in "Bad Boys." I was impressed with his versatility.
Interesting that you've all named MALE actors with the exception of Goldie Hawn who's more noted for other work.
Can I offer Meryl Streep? She has acted in a variety of roles over a very long period, and her roles've all been different. And "believable."
As to the great "glamor" actors of the 40s and 50s, they've gone and their ilk will never return. Much more natural styles now. Better.
Twinky, you are so right! Meryl Streep is a superb actress. Jane Fonda, and Julia Roberts are also great actresses, who have had very successful careers.
When Sean Penn first hit the scene in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," it would have been easy to get typecast into burnout roles; but he went from there to a military school cadet in "TAPS" and a street thug in "Bad Boys." I was impressed with his versatility.
George
George, I had forgotten that Penn was in " Taps." Good movie!
Interesting that you've all named MALE actors with the exception of Goldie Hawn who's more noted for other work.
Can I offer Meryl Streep? She has acted in a variety of roles over a very long period, and her roles've all been different. And "believable."
As to the great "glamor" actors of the 40s and 50s, they've gone and their ilk will never return. Much more natural styles now. Better.
And that is totally my fault Twinky and I take the blame for that. I did have women in mind though when I posted this thread, but I got off track with it. Meryl Streep is a fine actress and versatility is the key to her success. What would anyone say about an actress ( I still have issues with the actor vs actress thing, they're actresses to me and always have been) like Cate Blanchett who has imo certainly gotten better and better as she has gone on in her career? I would certainly put her in the range where they have perfected their craft and become good actresses who may become great. I think this is due In part to them not taking the role for the sake of their starmeter on IMDB but are instead selecting and playing roles that are enriching and rewarding both for them and their audiences.
Other actresses that might fit into this profile are Rachel Weisz (The Whistleblower,The Constant Gardener) and Elisabeth Moss (Mad Men, The Handmaid's Tale).
Edited by Human without the bean I just wish I could stay logged in longer than 15 min.
Beanie: I think women prefer to be called Actors because the description Actress has more frothy connotations. Like wannabe starlet, eye candy, someone not serious. Whereas male Actors are considered genuine working people who are serious about their careers.
I really liked Elisabeth Moss in The Handmaid's Tale. Don't recall seeing her in anything else.
I don't have a TV and don't have time to go to the movies (maybe in the darker months??). So anyone I have heard of - I've really heard of.
Twinky, a few years ago, I saw Helen Mirren(SP?) in the movie "The Queen.". She was dead-on as Queen Elizabeth. She won the Oscar for " Best Actress," I believe. The movie was so-so, but I thought she was terrific as QE2.
Here's another woman Actor to consider: Dame Judi Dench. Has been around forever (professional career started 1957) and has played so many roles. She's a pretty awesome female; formidable, one might say.
Beanie: I think women prefer to be called Actors because the description Actress has more frothy connotations. Like wannabe starlet, eye candy, someone not serious. Whereas male Actors are considered genuine working people who are serious about their careers.
And some of whom, make big, big money for their movies.
Here's another woman Actor to consider: Dame Judi Dench. Has been around forever (professional career started 1957) and has played so many roles. She's a pretty awesome female; formidable, one might say.
Twinky, thank-you. I was trying to remember her name; you are so right. She has been around for along time, and is a very good actress. She won an Oscar for "Mrs. Brown(?)" I think. She may be old, but she is a good actress. Also, I think Maggie Smith is another terrific actress; she too is getting up there in years, but she is loaded with talent.
Twinky, thank-you. I was trying to remember her name; you are so right. She has been around for along time, and is a very good actress. She won an Oscar for "Mrs. Brown(?)" I think. She may be old, but she is a good actress. Also, I think Maggie Smith is another terrific actress; she too is getting up there in years, but she is loaded with talent.
Twinky, I must say that I think some of the British actors, are far more talented than American ones. However, some people would disagree with me on that. But I notice LO, was British, not American.
I really liked Elisabeth Moss in The Handmaid's Tale. Don't recall seeing her in anything else.
I don't have a TV and don't have time to go to the movies (maybe in the darker months??). So anyone I have heard of - I've really heard of.
So what's that like Twinky without a tv? I've heard of people who do not have a tv, Vincent Vega in Pulp Fiction didn't watch tv, but what does a real boy in this day and age supplement himself with instead of the great big wide spectacular 64in" color TV? How does that work? Are you a monk? Are you in television and don't want to associate with it? That's quite a feat if you really don't have one!
On 8/23/2017 at 1:53 PM, Grace Valerie Claire said:
Twinky, I must say that I think some of the British actors, are far more talented than American ones. However, some people would disagree with me on that. But I notice LO, was British, not American.
And who may they might be Grace? I don't disagree with you on that, I honestly don't know who they are. Some actors and actresses are so good at concealing their native accents that I never really pick up that they are actually foreign. Case in point, Guy Pierce has been in numerous movies like The Time Machine, L A Confidential, Prometheus, but I never realized that he was British.
On 8/23/2017 at 1:53 PM, Grace Valerie Claire said:
Twinky, I must say that I think some of the British actors, are far more talented than American ones. However, some people would disagree with me on that. But I notice LO, was British, not American.
So before we get too far off track here Grace I didn't begin this thread to discuss which are the good actors that we have now. Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, and Meryl Streep are all fine actors. We know that they are fine actors because they have been around now for awhile. But what I would like to discuss is where are the good actors and actresses we have now and will they be around for 40 years like DeNiro, Pacino, Hoffman, and Streep or Hackman, Nicholson, Hanks or Eastwood, Emma Thompson or Julia Roberts, Susan Sarandon, or Sally Fields?
In the summer months, I'm so busy that I hardly have time (my work is seasonal) - I'm so tired when I get home that I often fall asleep on the couch. I love to read books, but haven't had time to do that in ... too long to remember. Since early spring, I suppose.
I listen to the radio all the time, same program on my main radios at home and in my car. Some very interesting stuff and I can do other things as well, whilst listening.
If there's something I'd really like to see, I can watch it over the internet on my laptop (how I watched Handmaid's Tale), or invite myself to a friend, or get a friend to record it for me. That rarely happens, though.
When I visit my Mum for the weekend, she goes to bed quite early and leaves me with the TV to watch. I browse the vast selection of programs available to watch and frequently can't find anything that interests me. Sometimes, I check through the daily or weekly newspapers, to see what might be on TV, primarily so that I can congratulate myself on not wasting my TV licence fee [which funds the BBC] of about £150 pa on such rubbish. I've never been into "soaps," what passes for "comedy," game shows, reality TV, sports, cop shows, and the like. I hate the constant switching of angles for TV shots, which I can only assume is done to keep up interest because the content is so boring.
Since (at least on the BBC) the news items are often the same on radio and TV, I'm not distracted in the content by the flicking between different camera angles.
Nature programs, documentaries, and good films are more in my line. On nature programs, too, there are often longer shots of whatever is being shown.
I haven't had a TV in ...at least 20 years. More, maybe. Even when I lived in a country where there was no TV licence fee.
I could ask you the same question: what's it like, having a TV and having that box in the corner distracting your every moment?
Recommended Posts
GeorgeStGeorge
I think DiCaprio is an excellent actor.
I would also offer Sean Penn. Personal life a mess, but he is an amazingly versatile actor.
I think that a truly great performer should be able to do comedy and drama equally well. Ones you've mentioned, Hanks and Hackman, come to mind; I might add (Michal) Keaton. I'm having trouble thinking of actresses who do both well, though.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
I would agree that Sean Penn's (like him or not) film work stands up. If a list were made today of hollywood's best, for me, I think it would be a very short list. I would also agree with you George, that a good actor should be versatile in both comedies as well as dramas. . Robert DeNiro comes to mind. So versatile.
Take your Ryan Reynolds, or Brad Cooper's, or Chris Pine's. They are all good looking hunks who play heartthrobs for the ladies but they fall short imo when it comes to giving a truly worthwhile performance. They are mostly known for choosing comedies. I don't know if that's because that is all they are offered or not, and I find that hard to believe, but I think it suggests A: that hollywood has dried up and no longer cares about really good roles or B: that those actors aren't as versatile and haven't developed that kind of range to play really good roles. I never would have thought 15 or 20 years ago that George Clooney would come up in the conversation as a really good actor. But imo that's what he has done. He has developed that range in his acting and has become versatile at playing both arenas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
A growing trend for actors is to keep making movies together. I guess it makes sense, why not. If it ain't broke don't fix it right? The motivation is greedy. Fame, money all that.
This doesn't make a great actor or even a good one. Maybe it's not the actor's who are to blame. Maybe there's no great roles anymore?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
George, I think years ago, Goldy(SP?) Hawn could do comedy, or drama quite well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Her voice and appearance were, perhaps, more suited for comedy, but I agree. Goldie was a fine dramatic actress, as well.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
George, yes she was! Thanks for correcting my spelling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Human, I'm sorry, but I don't know these actors. I think Samuel L. Jackson, and Morgan Freeman are great actors. Perhaps, a bit intense for some.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
George, I agree. Yes his personal life is messed up, but perhaps that is why he is such a good actor. George, his father was Matthew Penn, I think. Was Matthew an actor, or screen writer, or something along those lines?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
I don't know.
When Sean Penn first hit the scene in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," it would have been easy to get typecast into burnout roles; but he went from there to a military school cadet in "TAPS" and a street thug in "Bad Boys." I was impressed with his versatility.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Interesting that you've all named MALE actors with the exception of Goldie Hawn who's more noted for other work.
Can I offer Meryl Streep? She has acted in a variety of roles over a very long period, and her roles've all been different. And "believable."
As to the great "glamor" actors of the 40s and 50s, they've gone and their ilk will never return. Much more natural styles now. Better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Twinky, you are so right! Meryl Streep is a superb actress. Jane Fonda, and Julia Roberts are also great actresses, who have had very successful careers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
George, I had forgotten that Penn was in " Taps." Good movie!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
And that is totally my fault Twinky and I take the blame for that. I did have women in mind though when I posted this thread, but I got off track with it. Meryl Streep is a fine actress and versatility is the key to her success. What would anyone say about an actress ( I still have issues with the actor vs actress thing, they're actresses to me and always have been) like Cate Blanchett who has imo certainly gotten better and better as she has gone on in her career? I would certainly put her in the range where they have perfected their craft and become good actresses who may become great. I think this is due In part to them not taking the role for the sake of their starmeter on IMDB but are instead selecting and playing roles that are enriching and rewarding both for them and their audiences.
Other actresses that might fit into this profile are Rachel Weisz (The Whistleblower,The Constant Gardener) and Elisabeth Moss (Mad Men, The Handmaid's Tale).
Edited by Human without the beanI just wish I could stay logged in longer than 15 min.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I really liked Elisabeth Moss in The Handmaid's Tale. Don't recall seeing her in anything else.
I don't have a TV and don't have time to go to the movies (maybe in the darker months??). So anyone I have heard of - I've really heard of.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Beanie: I think women prefer to be called Actors because the description Actress has more frothy connotations. Like wannabe starlet, eye candy, someone not serious. Whereas male Actors are considered genuine working people who are serious about their careers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Twinky, a few years ago, I saw Helen Mirren(SP?) in the movie "The Queen.". She was dead-on as Queen Elizabeth. She won the Oscar for " Best Actress," I believe. The movie was so-so, but I thought she was terrific as QE2.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Here's another woman Actor to consider: Dame Judi Dench. Has been around forever (professional career started 1957) and has played so many roles. She's a pretty awesome female; formidable, one might say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
And some of whom, make big, big money for their movies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Twinky, thank-you. I was trying to remember her name; you are so right. She has been around for along time, and is a very good actress. She won an Oscar for "Mrs. Brown(?)" I think. She may be old, but she is a good actress. Also, I think Maggie Smith is another terrific actress; she too is getting up there in years, but she is loaded with talent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Twinky, I must say that I think some of the British actors, are far more talented than American ones. However, some people would disagree with me on that. But I notice LO, was British, not American.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
So what's that like Twinky without a tv? I've heard of people who do not have a tv, Vincent Vega in Pulp Fiction didn't watch tv, but what does a real boy in this day and age supplement himself with instead of the great big wide spectacular 64in" color TV? How does that work? Are you a monk? Are you in television and don't want to associate with it? That's quite a feat if you really don't have one!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
And who may they might be Grace? I don't disagree with you on that, I honestly don't know who they are. Some actors and actresses are so good at concealing their native accents that I never really pick up that they are actually foreign. Case in point, Guy Pierce has been in numerous movies like The Time Machine, L A Confidential, Prometheus, but I never realized that he was British.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
So before we get too far off track here Grace I didn't begin this thread to discuss which are the good actors that we have now. Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, and Meryl Streep are all fine actors. We know that they are fine actors because they have been around now for awhile. But what I would like to discuss is where are the good actors and actresses we have now and will they be around for 40 years like DeNiro, Pacino, Hoffman, and Streep or Hackman, Nicholson, Hanks or Eastwood, Emma Thompson or Julia Roberts, Susan Sarandon, or Sally Fields?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
In the summer months, I'm so busy that I hardly have time (my work is seasonal) - I'm so tired when I get home that I often fall asleep on the couch. I love to read books, but haven't had time to do that in ... too long to remember. Since early spring, I suppose.
I listen to the radio all the time, same program on my main radios at home and in my car. Some very interesting stuff and I can do other things as well, whilst listening.
If there's something I'd really like to see, I can watch it over the internet on my laptop (how I watched Handmaid's Tale), or invite myself to a friend, or get a friend to record it for me. That rarely happens, though.
When I visit my Mum for the weekend, she goes to bed quite early and leaves me with the TV to watch. I browse the vast selection of programs available to watch and frequently can't find anything that interests me. Sometimes, I check through the daily or weekly newspapers, to see what might be on TV, primarily so that I can congratulate myself on not wasting my TV licence fee [which funds the BBC] of about £150 pa on such rubbish. I've never been into "soaps," what passes for "comedy," game shows, reality TV, sports, cop shows, and the like. I hate the constant switching of angles for TV shots, which I can only assume is done to keep up interest because the content is so boring.
Since (at least on the BBC) the news items are often the same on radio and TV, I'm not distracted in the content by the flicking between different camera angles.
Nature programs, documentaries, and good films are more in my line. On nature programs, too, there are often longer shots of whatever is being shown.
I haven't had a TV in ...at least 20 years. More, maybe. Even when I lived in a country where there was no TV licence fee.
I could ask you the same question: what's it like, having a TV and having that box in the corner distracting your every moment?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.