Home Forums Movies Best Actor 2004

Best Actor 2004

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 32 total)
Created
5 years ago
Last Reply
5 years ago
31
replies
10790
views
20
users
CAROL-CHANNING
4
teri
3
Problemchild
3
  • Sab227
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 29th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #153904

    Giamatti and Carrey should have both been nominated!

    ReplyCopy URL
    Macbeth
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 7th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #153905

    Here is my dream lineup:

    • Jim Carrey as Joel Barrish in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
    • Leonardo DiCaprio as Howard Hughes in The Aviator
    • Clint Eastwood as Frankie Dunne in Million Dollar Baby 
    • Paul Giamatti as Miles Raymond in Sideways
    • Tom Hanks as Viktor Navorski in The Terminal 

    The win would have gone to Jim Carrey or Clint Eastwood 

    ReplyCopy URL
    vinny
    Participant
    Joined:
    May 20th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #153906

    DiCaprio and Depp were the ones I liked the best but it was clear that it was going to be Foxx for the win.

    My nominees would have been:
    1)Leonardo DiCaprio, The Aviator
    2)Jamie Foxx, Ray
    3) Johnny Depp, Finding Neverland
    4)Javier Bardem, The Sea Inside
    5)Liam Neeson, Kinsey        

    ReplyCopy URL
    Problemchild
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 28th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #153907

    I’m surprised to hear soo much love for Eastwood here. I would have to agree that his performance was wooden, and his nomination unwarranted. In my opinion, it was a three-way race between Foxx, DiCaprio and Cheadle, with a slight edge over the other two.

    As fars as Supporting Actor goes I think I may be alone in backing Alan Alda. I truly loved him in his few scenes. While Foxx’s LEAD performance in Collateral was good, it was eclipsed by his bid for Ray. Clive Owens and Closer overall was just too much for me too handle. Thomas Haden Church’s performance felt too light and easy and Morgan Freeman walks away with his Academy IOU.

    Supporting Actress should have gone to the un-nominated Regina King, but since she missed her bid Blanchett rightfully won.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Malick
    Member
    Joined:
    Dec 24th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #153908

    Foxx rightfully won. And no he was not better in Collateral

    ReplyCopy URL
    CAROL-CHANNING
    Member
    Joined:
    Sep 30th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #153909

    Eastwood is a very “wooden” actor because he’s a fairly “wooden” person. But the characters he plays tend to be pretty wooden, so it works! His performance perfectly matched the character in Million Dollar Baby.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Baby Clyde
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 8th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #153910

    This makes sense but it’s the exact same character he’s been playing for 50 years.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Problemchild
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 28th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #153911

    This makes sense but it’s the exact same character he’s been playing for 50 years.

    Agreed!

    Foxx rightfully won. And no he was not better in Collateral.

    I wasn’t stating Foxx was better in Collateral, only that he had no chance in Supporting because his role in Ray was soo buzzed about.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Eddy Q
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 13th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #153912

    If Foxx really was lead in Collateral (haven’t seen it) then this must be one of the most pointless nominations in history as it was so obvious he was winning for Ray. It wasn’t as if Collateral was even much of an Oscar player, why did voters feel the need to check it off here? 

    ReplyCopy URL
    King Loso
    Participant
    Joined:
    Aug 12th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #153913

    I think the problem most people have with Foxx’s performance in Ray is that they viewed it more as impersonation of Ray Charles than actual acting. I personally found Jamie to be terrific and was delighted at his win, but I do understand the sentiment of many of the detractors.

    ReplyCopy URL
    CAROL-CHANNING
    Member
    Joined:
    Sep 30th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #153914

    [quote=”Baby Clyde”]This makes sense but it’s the exact same character he’s been playing for 50 years.

    Agreed!
    [/quote]

    Meh.  It works.  A lot of great actors just do the same things over and over again.  Their skills lie in making the persona they created for themselves compelling.  Other actors’ skills lie in creating drastically different characters.  All of it is acting, and I don’t think there’s any point in calling one style “better” than the other. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    babypook
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #153915

    I’m surprised to hear soo much love for Eastwood here. I would have to agree that his performance was wooden, and his nomination unwarranted. In my opinion, it was a three-way race between Foxx, DiCaprio and Cheadle, with a slight edge over the other two.

    As fars as Supporting Actor goes I think I may be alone in backing Alan Alda. I truly loved him in his few scenes. While Foxx’s LEAD performance in Collateral was good, it was eclipsed by his bid for Ray. Clive Owens and Closer overall was just too much for me too handle. Thomas Haden Church’s performance felt too light and easy and Morgan Freeman walks away with his Academy IOU.

    Supporting Actress should have gone to the un-nominated Regina King, but since she missed her bid Blanchett rightfully won.

    Yes you mentioned your bias when you started the thread. I suppose it’s always surprising when others dont share the same opinion with what seems like such an obvious fact.

    “Joe” isnt “Harry” who isnt “Thunderbolt” who isnt “Munny” nor “Kowalski”, nor “Frankie”.

     

    ReplyCopy URL
    Malick
    Member
    Joined:
    Dec 24th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #153916

    Foxx rightfully won. And no he was not better in Collateral.

    I wasn’t stating Foxx was better in Collateral, only that he had no chance in Supporting because his role in Ray was soo buzzed about.[/quote]

    Sorry man, I wasn’t addressing you. I was just speaking in general.

    I think the problem most people have with Foxx’s performance in Ray
    is that they viewed it more as impersonation of Ray Charles than actual
    acting.
     I personally found Jamie to be terrific and was delighted at
    his win, but I do understand the sentiment of many of the detractors.

    This attitude creates an impossible scenario. If an actor is spot-on they’re criticized for this mimicry bullsh*t but if they make the character their own they’re criticized as being “nothing like the real person”. There is no way to win and it is imo unfair treatment. To be spot-on takes skills and alotta work. And in the same vein to make a character your own also takes great skill. Both should be praised and fully respected, unfortunately this simple concept/view-point isn’t widely accepted. But I must credit Pook as this is something she and I have discussed and agreed about in the past.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Stardust
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 13th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #153917

    [quote=”problemchild”][quote=”Baby Clyde”]This makes sense but it’s the exact same character he’s been playing for 50 years.

    Agreed!
    [/quote]

    Meh.  It works.  A lot of great actors just do the same things over and over again.  Their skills lie in making the persona they created for themselves compelling.  Other actors’ skills lie in creating drastically different characters.  All of it is acting, and I don’t think there’s any point in calling one style “better” than the other. [/quote]
    Depends on the context. If a persona-dependent actor is beliveable in the role then their style/persona is effective there. Those type of actors are not always effective however precisely because they largely rely on their persona or a projection of their own traits and it doesn’t always complement the context particularly if they’ve been miscast. And after watching them play the same type over and over it makes you very conscious of their limits as actors. There are actors of this kind that stick to what they know best, what’s in their wheelhouse, within their range or “type”, and are easy to call “great” because they’re believable in the roles they choose because they can portray something which comes easy to them. Some of the “great actors” of that style I like and enjoy, but generally I’m more drawn to actors who dissociate themselves from characters and wholly inhabit them as opposed to just making characters fit them or riffing on a particular set of mirrored traits. Though one style can’t be objectively better than the other, I disagree with the idea that all of it is acting, or great acting at least, as I believe great acting (/great actors) lies in inhabiting and effectively portraying distinctive characters within the context; but if you’re “playing yourself” every time even when it’s effective because the context chosen allows it, I’m don’t think that is a commendable skill or even a skill at all (for the craft). Imo, the skill then lies in being a savvy actor. Clooney, for one, is a savvy actor. Not bad at all, but not remotely a great actor per se. He sticks to what he knows he’s good at and what he can do. 

    I’m fine with Foxx’s win. I thought DiCaprio was great, and it’s the one nominated role of his I think is “Oscar-worthy’.

    I think the problem most people have with Foxx’s performance in Ray is that they viewed it more as impersonation of Ray Charles than actual acting. I personally found Jamie to be terrific and was delighted at his win, but I do understand the sentiment of many of the detractors.

    This attitude creates an impossible scenario. If an actor is spot-on they’re criticized for this mimicry bullsh*t but if they make the character their own they’re criticized as being “nothing like the real person”. There is no way to win and it is imo unfair treatment. To be spot-on takes skills and alotta work. And in the same vein to make a character your own also takes great skill. Both should be praised and fully respected, unfortunately this simple concept/view-point isn’t widely accepted. But I must credit Pook as this is something she and I have discussed and agreed about in the past. 
    [/quote] 
    Agreed. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    CAROL-CHANNING
    Member
    Joined:
    Sep 30th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #153918

    [quote=”LFTSPICE44″][quote=”problemchild”][quote=”Baby Clyde”]This makes sense but it’s the exact same character he’s been playing for 50 years.

    Agreed!
    [/quote]

    Meh.  It works.  A lot of great actors just do the same things over and over again.  Their skills lie in making the persona they created for themselves compelling.  Other actors’ skills lie in creating drastically different characters.  All of it is acting, and I don’t think there’s any point in calling one style “better” than the other. [/quote]
    Depends on the context. If a persona-dependent actor is beliveable in the role then their style/persona is effective there. Those type of actors are not always effective however precisely because they largely rely on their persona or a projection of their own traits and it doesn’t always complement the context particularly if they’ve been miscast. And after watching them play the same type over and over it makes you very conscious of their limits as actors. There are actors of this kind that stick to what they know best, what’s in their wheelhouse, within their range or “type”, and are easy to call “great” because they’re believable in the roles they choose because they can portray something which comes easy to them. Some of the “great actors” of that style I like and enjoy, but generally I’m more drawn to actors who dissociate themselves from characters and wholly inhabit them as opposed to just making characters fit them or riffing on a particular set of mirrored traits. Though one style can’t be objectively better than the other, I disagree with the idea that all of it is acting, or great acting at least, as I believe great acting (/great actors) lies in inhabiting and effectively portraying distinctive characters within the context; but if you’re “playing yourself” every time even when it’s effective because the context chosen allows it, I’m don’t think that is a commendable skill or even a skill at all (for the craft). Imo, the skill then lies in being a savvy actor. Clooney, for one, is a savvy actor. Not bad at all, but not remotely a great actor per se. He sticks to what he knows he’s good at and what he can do. 
     [/quote]

    Yeah, I definitely agree that it has to work in the context of the overall picture.  And it has to still remain believable coming from the actor.  When the actor plays up their persona to the point where it becomes forced, that’s when it turns into schtick.  That’s never fun for anyone.  But I think some great actors who are more “personas” than “chameleons” have mastered the art of using the natural qualities they were born with that make them unique to inspire writers and directors. 

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 32 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Similar Topics
Hengedrita - Sep 20, 2019
Movies
Chris B... - Sep 20, 2019
Movies
AMG - Sep 20, 2019
Movies