criterionforum.org

There's a thread going around regarding Tom Cruise, and his uncanny ability to work with major directors time and time again. I was wondering why an Oscar-winning superstar like Denzel Washington has worked with virtually none, save for Spike Lee and maybe Norman Jewison. Is it because Denzel is happy enough commanding a high dollar, leading-man role time and time again, and doesn't see himself as a character actor as well?

Here are a few names he's worked with:

Edward Zwick
Tony Scott 2xx
Spike Lee
Jonathan Demme
Boaz Yakin
Kenneth Branagh
Norman Jewison 2xx
Antoine Fuqua
Richard Attenborough

And here are the names Tom has worked with:

Paul Thomas Anderson
Barry Levinson
Edward Zwick
Michael Mann
Steven Spielberg
Rob Reiner
Cameron Crowe 2xx
Oliver Stone
Stanley Kubrick
Francis Ford Coppola
Brian De Palma
Steven Spielberg
Martin Scorsese
Sydney Pollack
Tony Scott 2xx
Ron Howard
Ridley Scott
John Woo

Not everyone can be Tom Cruise, I know, but aren't directors like Spielberg, Scorsese and Coppola genuinely interested in using Denzel in one of their films? At least once? Just another curiosity of mine, I guess. If anything, it seems Will Smith is trying to fill that gap. And, on the other hand, will Cruise ever work with Lee? Probably when he's 53, I suppose...

BTW, Spike Lee turned 50 this year! Time sure does fly!

I think it just shows there different style of choosing projects. script vs talent.

*sits patiently and waits for Invunche to derail thread with comment along the lines of "I think it's because he's black."*

I'm trying to think of a movie post-Malcolm X where he was actually acting

domino harvey wrote:I'm trying to think of a movie post-Malcolm X where he was actually acting

Hey, another potential thesis topic! Denzel Washington: The Art of Not Acting in Things That Are Not Movies.

He's a little too willing to settle. Guys with his talent should not be working with Michael Bay or Tony Scott, at least not regularly. I've groaned more than once, seeing trailers for new films he's in.

But Cruise...he's been on a mission for a long time, now. He's determined, through sheer dint of effort, to pile up an outwardly impressive resumé, never mind the fact that he has a talent level more suited to a CW sitcom.

He's like Chauncey Gardner, just with a plan.

Jeff wrote:

domino harvey wrote:I'm trying to think of a movie post-Malcolm X where he was actually acting

Hey, another potential thesis topic! Denzel Washington: The Art of Not Acting in Things That Are Not Movies.

Um, good one?

domino harvey wrote:I'm trying to think of a movie post-Malcolm X where he was actually acting

Have you seen He Got Game or The Hurricane? Those are the two most impressive performances I can think of since Malcolm X, but he's done some great work in films like Devil in a Blue Dress too. It's a little ridiculous to question his acting the past fifteen years actually.

I agree souvenir, and one doesn't even have to look further than last year's great Inside Man in which Washington is utterly fantastic. He and Chiwetel Ejiofor have great chemistry.

I suppose it should be noted, that Washington's next film is Ridley Scott's American Gangster where he will be acting opposite Russell Crowe. I'm quite looking forward to that.

SncDthMnky wrote:*sits patiently and waits for Invunche to derail thread with comment along the lines of "I think it's because he's black."*

Combined, how many black protagonists have the following directors featured in a film?

Paul Thomas Anderson
Barry Levinson
Edward Zwick
Michael Mann
Steven Spielberg
Rob Reiner
Cameron Crowe 2xx
Oliver Stone
Stanley Kubrick
Francis Ford Coppola
Brian De Palma
Steven Spielberg
Martin Scorsese
Sydney Pollack
Ron Howard
Ridley Scott
John Woo

That might be worth looking into... let me look through their IMDB's and I'll get back to you.

Paul Thomas Anderson - Hard Eight (Samuel L. Jackson)

Edward Zwick - Glory, obviously, but also Blood Diamond, The Siege, Courage Under Fire

Michael Mann - Collateral, Ali and Miami Vice

Steven Spielberg - Amistad, The Color Purple

Rob Reiner - Ghosts of Mississippi

Oliver Stone - Any Given Sunday

Francis Ford Coppola - The Cotton Club

Martin Scorsese - The Blues

Ridley Scott - Gladiator

Obviously, some of these are smaller roles or roles without much depth required, and it's difficult to see where the actor cast could have been replaced by Denzel Washington.

Oddly enough, Ridley Scott's newest project "American Gangster" stars Denzel Washington and Cuba Gooding Jr, and Rob Reiner's upcoming "The Bucket List" stars Morgan Freeman.

mmacklem wrote:Paul Thomas Anderson - Hard Eight (Samuel L. Jackson)

Would argue for Don Cheadle in Boogie Nights as well

domino harvey wrote:

Jeff wrote:Hey, another potential thesis topic! Denzel Washington: The Art of Not Acting in Things That Are Not Movies.

Um, good one?

Much like Steven H. in the Bottle Rocket thread, my sarcasm was intended to spur you towards elaborating on your points. Besides being "against the rules," it's a little odd to make statements "the Life Aquatic is a lot of things but it's almost certainly not a movie" or "I'm trying to think of a movie post-Malcolm X where [Denzel Washington] was actually acting" and then not offering an ounce of explanation or elaboration. You may very well have good points in both instances, but you certainly haven't made them here. I'm not trying to be confrontational, just trying to understand where you're coming from.

Well, I think Washington proved he can be a very good actor in Malcolm X, and subsequently has settled for "safe" roles where the roles could probably have been played by anyone. He certainly has a likability that makes it easy to see why he'd be the actor of choice for the mainstream industry. His work in the more recent Spike Lee films seems pedestrian compared to what he has shown he's capable of, and speaking of pedestrian, his easy paycheck cashing on Virtuosity, Training Day (inexplicably winning an Oscar in the process, which is still embarrassing), and John Q don't go a long way towards disproving my argument. I don't really have any negative feelings towards Washington, and admittedly I have not seen all of his post-Malcolm X work, so there could certainly be some real crackerjacks of performance on display that I've missed, but until I see otherwise I stand by the assertion that at best he's not bringing anything to these roles that wouldn't be there for another competent actor.

I think that defense seems even more ridiculous. You cite three movies from a fifteen year period to back up your original blanket claim, using the qualifier that you might have missed something worthwhile. Off the top of my head, I can't think of another Hollywood actor who could have brought the same level of performance to the films I mentioned earlier. The "more recent Spike Lee films" are He Got Game and Inside Man and both are terrific performances. While the latter may look easy for a "competent actor," I'm still struggling to think of someone else who could have done it as well. Likeable, charming and capable actors are not abundant in Hollywood movies. In contrast, his character in He Got Game is probably the least safe role he's ever played, a man willing to prostitute his son's basketball future in exchange for his own release from prison. I can see picking on lots of A-list actors out there, but Denzel Washington seems like an absurd choice.

Well I've obviously seen more Washington films than the three I listed, but okay. I didn't know I needed a bib-page with my post.

He is a competent actor, nothing more. I'm not sure countering with "nuh unh, his performances are terrific" is a real defense. And I'm not picking on him (or any Denzel Washington fan for that matter... how great that you love him! I have no animosity towards him, but I've also rarely been prompted to consider him of my own volition), I wouldn't have mentioned him at all but someone on a message board brought him up for discussion and I've discussed him.

I'd actually counter that Washington consistently makes mediocre movies excellent by his presence alone. I never fail to get sucked into Demme's Manchurian Candidate remake just because Denzel is so damn watchable in it. Maybe that's a subjective response that simply shows how much I like him, but then again, likeability (or the always nebulous screen presence/photogenie) is arguably the movie star's most important trait.

I think this also explains why Washington isn't in movies by directors that art film nerds like us like to squee over: His particular screen presence is of an intelligent, intense, rather inscrutable, and not particularly sexualized American black man. Unfortunately, there's not much of a place for that character in American film.

Oh yeah, and he's terrific in Inside Man.

I thought he was quite good in Training Day.

leo goldsmith wrote:I'd actually counter that Washington consistently makes mediocre movies excellent by his presence alone. I never fail to get sucked into Demme's Manchurian Candidate remake just because Denzel is so damn watchable in it. Maybe that's a subjective response that simply shows how much I like him, but then again, likeability (or the always nebulous screen presence/photogenie) is arguably the movie star's most important trait.

I think this also explains why Washington isn't in movies by directors that art film nerds like us like to squee over: His particular screen presence is of an intelligent, intense, rather inscrutable, and not particularly sexualized American black man. Unfortunately, there's not much of a place for that character in American film.

Both excellent points.

As pedestrian and by the numbers as it is, I feel the same way about Remember The Titans, (which also benefits from the presence of the always interesting Will Patton to help anchor it's clichés to something like reality.)

I think this also explains why Washington isn't in movies by directors that art film nerds like us like to squee over: His particular screen presence is of an intelligent, intense, rather inscrutable, and not particularly sexualized American black man. Unfortunately, there's not much of a place for that character in American film.

In addition to this, and the other point about him making watchable movies better with his persona, I would propose one other suggestion as to why art-house directors would shy away from him, namely that he is a very strong screen presence that tends to dominate a picture, and most of the films by many of the directors being discussed are by design features on the director, in that the film itself (or the director) is the star rather than being a vehicle for a particular actor or character. One can complain that Washington should be able to get past this obstacle and should be able to be flexible enough to take a more laid-back background role, but it's unfair to attack him for doing what he does very well by saying that he doesn't do something else very well instead.

One other point on this same topic: I recently saw Glory, and I must say that it is very strange seeing Washington in a smaller role given his subsequent film success. It's possible that he's pushed himself past the point where his screen presence is appropriate for the types of movies that would require less presence from him.

Also, at the risk of squandering the credibility of my above arguments, I think he was very good in Man on Fire, so add that one to the other movies mentioned as post-Malcolm X strong performances.

mmacklem wrote:One other point on this same topic: I recently saw Glory, and I must say that it is very strange seeing Washington in a smaller role given his subsequent film success. It's possible that he's pushed himself past the point where his screen presence is appropriate for the types of movies that would require less presence from him.

That's an interesting point too. Does a point come where your presence as 'Denzel Washington' overpowers the character you are playing in a particular film? Julia Roberts came to mind, and I'm thinking of the way she was able to use the 'Julia Roberts in...' presence to create interest in the Erin Brocovich film but then not let that dominate the role itself once the audience was in the theatre and watching the film compared to many of her safer romantic comedy films, something I'm not sure Tom Cruise has managed yet - even his more 'edgy' performances seem to play into public perception of the 'Cruise persona'. Or at least I've never managed to get past 'Cruise on screen' to engage with the individual characters he plays (though I think he got close with War of the Worlds). That reflects more on me, though!

I guess it is a dangerous game for a star to play. You don't want to change the perception too much because after all a lot of the public perception of a star is probably based on their performances and characters they play in their films. At the same time they probably still want to surprise the audience and push themselves into new areas that risks not being what the general audience for their films want to see, or are comfortable with, but which prevents the star's career from going stale. This is before we even get into factors such as how much depends on what films are being developed at the time, and of course whether they are wanted for the part (though I guess stars don't have to worry too much about being rejected for roles?)

flyonthewall2983 wrote:I thought he was quite good in Training Day.

Finally, someone comes out and says it! Clearly, a lot of other people thought he was (more than) 'quite good' in this film as well.

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.

Tom Cruise is clearly ambitious as hell, but is limited as an actor. But while he doesn't necessarily have the chops, he can turn in some surprisingly good performances (I thought his performance in Collateral was the best of his career). To put it another way, Cruise is competent, but I don't expect he'll ever win a Best Actor, while Denzel, if he's on, puts himself in the running regardless of the movie he's in.

mmacklem wrote:Also, at the risk of squandering the credibility of my above arguments, I think he was very good in Man on Fire, so add that one to the other movies mentioned as post-Malcolm X strong performances.

I liked his performance in Man On Fire as well, even though I thought the film was pretty bad. I also thought his performance in Out Of Time, an overlooked little genre exercise, was quite good.

Like Whoopi Goldberg said back in the day, "it's not like I got a shit script and a great script and I said, hey, I'll make the shit script."

It's unrealistic to assume that Denzel has the same choices available to him as, say, Russell Crowe. Look at Crowe's best known roles: L.A. Confidential, The Insider, Gladiator, Beautiful Mind, Master and Commander, Cinderella Man. Don't think any of those scripts crossed Denzel's desk.

The fact that Denzel's managed to make the number and variety of pictures he has is pretty remarkable. 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.