|
|
Post by hi224 on Feb 10, 2019 8:53:42 GMT
Ive seen compelling cases such as Brando being supporting actually.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Feb 10, 2019 11:24:46 GMT
Agreed -- Pacino owns the film. His character arc drives the narrative.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Feb 10, 2019 11:28:29 GMT
Agreed -- Pacino owns the film. His character arc drives the narrative. 100% correct. |
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Feb 10, 2019 14:23:19 GMT
I agree as well. Has anyone determined whether Brando or Pacino has more lines and closeups?
|
|
|
|
Post by pimpinainteasy on Feb 10, 2019 14:36:27 GMT
It's brando, caan and Pacino. It's caans indiscretion - contradicting his father in front of Virgil sollozzo that created all the problems in the first place. Pacino cleaned up the mess created by caan.
|
|
|
|
Post by jervistetch on Feb 10, 2019 14:43:45 GMT
Khartoum was a head above the rest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🎄😷🎄 on Feb 10, 2019 14:45:05 GMT
Brando was only considered the lead because he was Brando.  It's Pacino's movie, really.   |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Feb 10, 2019 19:39:37 GMT
It's brando, caan and Pacino. It's caans indiscretion - contradicting his father in front of Virgil sollozzo that created all the problems in the first place. Pacino cleaned up the mess created by caan. eh Caan never feels like a focal point character at all, hes clearly supporting. |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Feb 10, 2019 20:09:07 GMT
Brando was only considered the lead because he was Brando. Maybe because the film title is THE GODFATHER and not SON OF THE GODFATHER ? 
Michael does what he does because of what his father has done or what his father has had done to him. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Feb 10, 2019 20:13:33 GMT
Maybe because the film title is THE GODFATHER and not SON OF THE GODFATHER ?
Michael does what he does because of what his father has done or what his father has had done to him. doesn't really mean both can't be co-leads. |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Feb 10, 2019 20:25:34 GMT
hi224 is this thread about the academy noms for Pacino, Duvall and Caan as Supporting Actors and Brando as Lead ? or is it about something else .. Sorry, but … It's confusing.
I would definitely say Pacino and Brando were both Leads and Caan and Duvall = supporting
Sometimes what gets nominated for lead or supporting is bizarre, Much as I love Judy Dench her eye blink role in Shakespeare in Love was a cameo not a "supporting" ...but therein lies another thing...
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Feb 10, 2019 20:33:21 GMT
hi224 is this thread about the academy noms for Pacino, Duvall and Caan as Supporting Actors and Brando as Lead ? or is it about something else .. Sorry, but … It's confusing.
I would definitely say Pacino and Brando were both Leads and Caan and Duvall = supporting
Sometimes what gets nominated for lead or supporting is bizarre, Much as I love Judy Dench her eye blink role in Shakespeare in Love was a cameo not a "supporting" ...but therein lies another thing... its simply placement do you consider them leads of the film or do you consider something else. |
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Feb 10, 2019 20:34:14 GMT
And while we're on the subject -- Talia Shire in ROCKY was certainly not a leading role.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Feb 10, 2019 20:41:27 GMT
And while we're on the subject -- Talia Shire in ROCKY was certainly not a leading role. I can agree, what about Training Day as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🎄😷🎄 on Feb 11, 2019 13:12:57 GMT
Brando was only considered the lead because he was Brando. Maybe because the film title is THE GODFATHER and not SON OF THE GODFATHER ?
Michael does what he does because of what his father has done or what his father has had done to him. From another point of view, The Godfather of the title could be referring to Michael, who becomes the Godfather by the end. The whole movie is his story, leading him into the life of crime. The sequels were also all about him and kept the same title. Not saying you're wrong, because I only started thinking of it this way myself recently as well. |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Feb 11, 2019 13:36:23 GMT
^^ all true Lebowskidoo 🎄😷🎄… just depends on how one thinks on it … works fine either/both ways. Not a film I think about very much one way or 'tother |
|
|
|
Post by marshamae on Feb 11, 2019 14:10:00 GMT
The whole business of leads has many components
There’s the story arc. The actor who makes things happen is not as important as the actor that is at the center of the story. From this point of view Pacino is certainly the lead. The story is certainly about Michael becoming.
Then there is the actor cast. At that time it was virtually impossible to see Brando as anything but The lead. He was the most compelling actor of his time, able to control scenes he wasn’t even in. About two thirds of the way into the film it stopped being about Brando acting on Pacino and became Pacino acting on Brando, but that doesn’t diminish Brando’s impact. As great as Pacino future was , as great as his performance was, there’s a good case for viewing Brando as the lead.
Then there’s the matter of screen time, not necessarily the most important factor.brando has less screen time but by itself that’s not enough to make him the lead
Finally there’s the academy winning strategy, the least important factor. Barry Fitzgerald in Going my way being nommed as a lead and suppôt, Judi de chez as support for 10 minutes....
|
|
