|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 19, 2019 4:34:43 GMT
Just to list some with some comments that are average at best overall... -Meryl Streep (considering some seem to act like she's the measuring stick for 'great acting', she's not even close in my mind as she lacks a solid all around presence in general which that alone stops someone from being among the elite in acting in my book. she's more technical kind of acting than a natural all around presence)…………. You know, you are right about Meryl Streep. She is obviously very intelligent, but she really does not have charisma, Her peers, like Jessica Lange and Sissy Spacek are much more charismatic. Streep is a "great" actress, but she is not a star. I'd say Streep is an "excellent" actress, but I feel "great" is too much of an hyperbole and how does one gauge "great"? It is all semantics I know, but Streep could be "terrific" in the right role, but what I see as her own ego to be seen as "great", has really been of detriment in the long run.
She got so much praise in the 80's, that in a sense, she did have a lot to live up to and that might have been a tad unfair as well on Streep. While I have to admit I did go to her films because she was in them and see her latest accent, hindsight has allowed for much retrospection of Streep's talent and she really wasn't what she was cracked up to be, compared to more natural, believable and in the moment actresses. The paradox here, and we have already discussed this before, Streep was at her best when she was being natural and feminine and more on the lighter side. I think she felt that being a serious actress was of more importance as being a comic actress and Farrah Fawcett fell into this trap as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Oct 23, 2019 7:51:17 GMT
dirtypillowsThat's my main issue with people calling her a 'great actress' as I can't call someone a 'great actress' if they fail to have a decent level of charisma etc no matter how good they may be at more of that technical kind of acting. basically you got to have star power (i.e. solid charisma and the like) on some level otherwise I can't label someone 'great'. sure, I realize there might be some examples where someone might be a bit so-so in the more straight acting dept but might have enough charisma to make them overcome their lack of standard acting skills, especially in certain roles that suit that person. so in certain cases I can see how someone might say the one with better basic acting skills is 'better' than the person who might be so-so basic acting skills but has a bit more charisma. still, even in cases like these with the person with more limited acting but has decent enough charisma I tend to prefer (especially on average) over the one with a bit better acting skills but never really worked all that well in a movie. because some of those who are more limited in more basic acting but have some level of charisma can work fairly well in certain roles (I guess maybe the flip side of that can happen to with those who don't have much charisma but are okay enough in basic acting if their overall presence, even if it's not that strong, can work well enough in certain roles). just some thoughts 
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 23, 2019 11:02:30 GMT
You know, you are right about Meryl Streep. She is obviously very intelligent, but she really does not have charisma, Her peers, like Jessica Lange and Sissy Spacek are much more charismatic. Streep is a "great" actress, but she is not a star.I'd say Streep is an "excellent" actress, but I feel "great" is too much of an hyperbole and how does one gauge "great"? It is all semantics I know, but Streep could be "terrific" in the right role, but what I see as her own ego to be seen as "great", has really been of detriment in the long run.
She got so much praise in the 80's, that in a sense, she did have a lot to live up to and that might have been a tad unfair as well on Streep. While I have to admit I did go to her films because she was in them and see her latest accent, hindsight has allowed for much retrospection of Streep's talent and she really wasn't what she was cracked up to be, compared to more natural, believable and in the moment actresses. The paradox here, and we have already discussed this before, Streep was at her best when she was being natural and feminine and more on the lighter side. I think she felt that being a serious actress was of more importance as being a comic actress and Farrah Fawcett fell into this trap as well.
I think that's a fair assessment. Streep is "excellent" without necessarily being great. I think with "great", one would also have to have some star power, Bette Davis being the first one who comes to mind. Also like your comment about Farrah Fawcett Majors, as she was a delight on the very lightweight "Charlie's Angels" and only adequate in her attempts at drama. Why, Farrah, why? I will never stop wondering. It almost makes me sad. Back in the day, I went to see Streep's films just because she was in the them. My favorite performances of hers are ones that are all relatively low key.
|
|
|
|
Post by nostromo on Oct 23, 2019 11:14:16 GMT
I don't really have any irrational dislikes. Mine are all rational. They include: Any film with this awful piece of wood:  This one :  This annoying juiced up hamster of a man:  And then you have worthless pieces of skin like Jean Claude van Damme, Rock "The Dwayne" Johnson, vin Diesel, that awful woman who was in Sex and the City, and probably many others. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 23, 2019 11:33:16 GMT
I'd say Streep is an "excellent" actress, but I feel "great" is too much of an hyperbole and how does one gauge "great"? It is all semantics I know, but Streep could be "terrific" in the right role, but what I see as her own ego to be seen as "great", has really been of detriment in the long run.
She got so much praise in the 80's, that in a sense, she did have a lot to live up to and that might have been a tad unfair as well on Streep. While I have to admit I did go to her films because she was in them and see her latest accent, hindsight has allowed for much retrospection of Streep's talent and she really wasn't what she was cracked up to be, compared to more natural, believable and in the moment actresses. The paradox here, and we have already discussed this before, Streep was at her best when she was being natural and feminine and more on the lighter side. I think she felt that being a serious actress was of more importance as being a comic actress and Farrah Fawcett fell into this trap as well.
I think that's a fair assessment. Streep is "excellent" without necessarily being great. I think with "great", one would also have to have some star power, Bette Davis being the first one who comes to mind. Also like your comment about Farrah Fawcett Majors, as she was a delight on the very lightweight "Charlie's Angels" and only adequate in her attempts at drama. Why, Farrah, why? I will never stop wondering. It almost makes me sad. Back in the day, I went to see Streep's films just because she was in the them. My favorite performances of hers are ones that are all relatively low key. Streep has pull, but yes, she doesn't quite appear to have the star power of what Davis exuded. Could Streep even be considered a classic actress? Is this just something reserved for yesteryear now, from the earlier to mid part of last century cinema?
I do need to see Defending Your Life still, as you have often raved about this one.
Farrah was given a bumsteer and mores the pity. Nothing wrong with serious drama, but why does one need to be taken seriously as an actor just because of drama? I guess that is where they felt the accolades and awards would come from and if that is the case, then they were doing it for the wrong reasons.
Jaclyn Smith knew her limitations and prospered on Angels. I bet she is the most humble of the original 3 too. Well, Fawcett has passed and I don't know about Jackson, but Smith doesn't have much of a filmography, but I bet she has been able to enjoy her life and live comfortably because of Angels because of sticking it through to the end. Her ladylike and feminine qualities appear like they would have served her well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 23, 2019 11:38:15 GMT
I don't really have any irrational dislikes. Mine are all rational. They include: Any film with this awful piece of wood: This one : This annoying juiced up hamster of a man: And then you have worthless pieces of skin like Jean Claude van Damme, Rock "The Dwayne" Johnson, vin Diesel, that awful woman who was in Sex and the City, and probably many others. I pretty much agree with your 3 choices here. Have never warmed well to Neeson and Hemsworth and Whalberg are meh!
The others are not really top leading men type, just b grade action stars, so I can give them a bit more leniency. I loved Van Damme's offerings in the late 80's and early 90's.
|
|
|
|
Post by nostromo on Oct 23, 2019 11:53:08 GMT
Also Saoirse Ronan. She comes across as a spoilt brat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 23, 2019 12:12:04 GMT
Brie Larson
|
|
