Not surprised that some of the top critics are calling DDL the greatest actor EVER. That says a lot since he's in no small company with: brando, deniro, pacino, newman, hopkins, nicholson and many others.
So you don't like Anne? I think she has a lot of potential as she gets more roles that aren't the cutesy, adolescent type. She has big talent and more range than portman or knightley. No one cries better than Portman though. She can cry hysterically at the drop of a hat
, but can't seem to shake off that adolescent vibe; I can't decide if she's endearing or gets on my nerves. I was very impressed with Knightley in Pride and Prejudice
, but it seems that she takes that maniacal toothy grin to too many roles
. Her attempt to play a mentally ill patient in A Dangerous Method
was beyond comical. I never laughed that hard since dumb and dumber
, and that's not what the director was going for.
I really think that Anne, like DDL is one of those rare actors that can truly morph into a role and become someone else.
No, I have nothing at all against Anne Hathaway. But I think her performance in Les Miserables was ridiculously hyped up. For me, crying hysterically in front of a camera does not constitute great acting... But on the whole, I blame the director, not the actors, for the disaster that was Les Mis.
I'm also really tired of all the fuss that they make around actors doing crazy things for roles. I know, it's a paradox, because I love Daniel Day-Lewis, and God knows they did (and still do) make a lot of fuss around how he stays in character constantly, blablabla...
But I don't care. What I'm interested in is the result. If it works like that for Daniel, good for him, he's amazing in practically all of his roles. But I'm getting really annoyed by the fact that promoting an actor or an actress for an Oscar now almost entirely revolves around, not the performance itself, but all the sacrifices that an actor has made for the role.
IMO, people need to stop with the religion of authenticity, and remember that the essence of cinema, of theatre, or acting, is PRETENDING. So who cares if Anne Hathaway lost plenty of weight to play Fantine? Who cares that she cut her hair for real? Make-up artists exist for a reason. Would her performance be even better if she had also got her teeth removed "for real"? If she had caught tuberculosis (or whatever the disease was) "for real"?
This "authencity" BS is exactly what makes films like Les Mis disastrous. For the sake of authenticity, they made the actors sing "for real", and as a result, the songs are really poor. They refused to even make a studio version, because that's not "authentic" enough. Well, maybe that's not authentic, but the songs would have been great instead of being barely average.
That reminds me of a story about a theatre director who, being obsessed with that "authenticity" trend, got outraged at the suggestion that he use "fake marble" for his set, even though the artists swore that it would look just like real marble (they were good at their jobs!) He decided to make real marble come all the way from Italy, and it cost a fortune. When the marble was installed, he suddenly realised: "but it's shiny! It reflects the lights far too much!" The artists said "Well, of course, it's shiny, it's marble." "But that won't do!" So in the end, they painted fake marble on the real marble...
I love Natalie Portman and yet I felt exactly the same about Black Swan. All that fuss about how she supposedly had reached the level of a professional dancer by training like mad once a year... That's ridiculous. A professional dancer trains like this for her entire life. And in the end, it turned out that she had been dubbed in the vast majority of scenes, anyway.
Once again, the hype was about everything but her actual performance. Was she better in Black Swan than in, say, V for Vendetta? I don't think so. Would her performance in Black Swan have been less good if she had NOT lost weight and claimed to have danced most of the scenes for real? No. But losing weight and pretending to be a dancer, that's what created the hype and led her to the Oscar.
As for Keira Knightley, to be honest, I think the problem with her is that she gets cast in roles that are just not appropriate for her. Joe Wright's version of Pride and Prejudice does have some interesting aspects (I used to hate it, then I studied it in detail, and I saw why it wasn't a bad film after all, though it's not a faithful adaptation at all). But for me, Knightley makes an awful Elizabeth Bennet. It's not that she's bad, she's just so far from being Lizzy. Generally, I don't think she's necessarily a bad actress, but I've never been impressed by her in any particular role. I always feel she could be interchangeable with many other actresses. It could just be that I haven't seen her best movies, though (Anna Karenina, Atonement...). I rather liked her in The Duchess.