criterionforum.org

Carson Dyle wrote:Nobody has a blemish-free resume.

Now that would be an interesting thread. As hard as I try, I can't think of any actor who fits the bill.

Highway 61 wrote:

Carson Dyle wrote:Nobody has a blemish-free resume.

Now that would be an interesting thread. As hard as I try, I can't think of any actor who fits the bill.

Jeremy Irons. Damage, Lolita, Dungeons and Dragons... there's not a stinker among them!!

(and yes, I'm kidding. I was trying to think of an actor who made one good film and then died abruptly before getting the chance to make a bad movie, but none come to mind.)

james dean.

Just to respond to the off-topic of blemish-free records, I think at least one answer is obvious: Daniel Day-Lewis.

If you kindly ignore Maid in Manhattan and The Avengers, then Ralph Fiennes has a near-perfect record as well.

I had a longer list of near-perfect records, but I figured that it would probably get me banned, so we'll perhaps try again later

LDS wrote:james dean.

I'll counter that with East Of Eden.

Antoine Doinel wrote:

LDS wrote:james dean.

I'll counter that with East Of Eden.

ooooohhh.... you're a cold man.... Although I would counter with saying James Dean saved that movie enough for me not to consider it a blemish, but that point is arguable.

How about John Cazale???

^ You beat me to it. John's usually the best answer to this question.

jbeall wrote:Denzel is excellent when he's challenged. In the more mediocre films that he's been in, he gives a decent-to-good performance, but in his better work, he's excellent.

It couldn't be stated any more perfectly.

This raises a slightly different question to that which spawned the conversation, which was an implicit criticism of Denzel Washington's choice of projects. So turning this around slightly: can anyone point to a performance of his that was specifically bad? and in this I mean one where the limitations are not due to the script but instead are specific to his performance? It seems like the common theme even among the critics in this thread is that he is able to elevate a script with his performance, which seems like confirmation of his talent-level.

mmacklem wrote:This raises a slightly different question to that which spawned the conversation, which was an implicit criticism of Denzel Washington's choice of projects. So turning this around slightly: can anyone point to a performance of his that was specifically bad? and in this I mean one where the limitations are not due to the script but instead are specific to his performance? It seems like the common theme even among the critics in this thread is that he is able to elevate a script with his performance, which seems like confirmation of his talent-level.

The questions also was: why aren't major directors patiently waiting in line to work with him like they are with Tom Cruise?

Carson Dyle wrote:And if some of them have turned out to be duds, that's pretty much par for the course in Hollywood. Nobody has a blemish-free resume.

Great (and apposite) quote from Malcolm McDowell, a man who decided very early on that continuous employment was more important than setting the artistic bar too high:

"It's easy to be good in a Robert Altman film. You try being good in Cyborg 3".

mmacklem wrote:Just to respond to the off-topic of blemish-free records, I think at least one answer is obvious: Daniel Day-Lewis.

Blemishes: The Bounty and The Crucible.

exte wrote:The questions also was: why aren't major directors patiently waiting in line to work with him like they are with Tom Cruise?

Quite simply because Cruise has the ability to get more ambitious works greenlit if his name is attached. I'm sure Paul Thomas Anderson would've had a harder time selling Magnolia - who execs I'm sure saw as a three-hour depress-a-thon with a weird incident involving frogs - if Cruise didn't get involved.

Unfortunately, I doubt even Denzel Washington even though his career is now fifteen years in, has that power. Execs always think any movie with a black actor automatically means "urban audience" which translates into "limited appeal, limited box office."

Unfortunately, I doubt even Denzel Washington even though his career is now fifteen years in, has that power. Execs always think any movie with a black actor automatically means "urban audience" which translates into "limited appeal, limited box office."

Whoa -- that's not true at all. Black actors and "urban audience" translates into "young, white, male, suburban audience", which is the B.O. g-spot. Unfortunately -- and furthering the point I made earlier -- Denzel doesn't "read" as urban.

Call it The Obama Dilemma.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:

mmacklem wrote:Just to respond to the off-topic of blemish-free records, I think at least one answer is obvious: Daniel Day-Lewis.

Blemishes: The Bounty and The Crucible.

I thought those were both reviewed overwhelmingly positively, and I certainly thought The Bounty was worth watching (not to mention the fact that DDL has a very small role in it, so it seems unfair to count that as a blemish on his record even if I were to concede that it was a bad movie).

But I believe this thread title is Denzel Washington and not Daniel Day-Lewis, so perhaps this is not an entirely productive diversion.

mmacklem wrote:This raises a slightly different question to that which spawned the conversation, which was an implicit criticism of Denzel Washington's choice of projects. So turning this around slightly: can anyone point to a performance of his that was specifically bad? and in this I mean one where the limitations are not due to the script but instead are specific to his performance?

Looking over his IMDB page, no, I can't.

He's been in some unsatisfying (Virtuosity, Ricochet), bland (The Pelican Brief, The Preacher's Wife), and just plain worthless (Philadelphia, Crimson Tide) films, but he's never really been anything less than professional in any of them.