Vain Actors

[Black_and_WhiteCharm]

Where have the men that are men gone? Cary Grant, Marlon Brando, Clark Gable, Gregory Peck etc, wre men! Treated women like women and acted like men! Now we have sex symbols that spend longer in front of the mirror than I do! Is anything more of a turn off?

[GarboManiac]

Well, that's the way of the current world! Women wanted to wear pants, smoke cigarettes, and go to bars like men. They wanted to vote and to work. And, they got all of it! Now, they want to be paid equally along with the men. Women have taken over many a home and don't even need a man. So, what are the men supposed to do with traditional roles that don't exist anymore? They, of course, deserve the equal right of staying home and not working. Young men today and many older men are wearing jewelry, scarves and make up. I know of some young men who are painting their finger nails. Soon, they will be wearing skirts instead of pants, which is only EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. Was a time when young girls were not even allowed an education. But, you have one, and the freedom of becoming anything you want, masculine or feminine. So, why would you begrudge the men of the world this equal opportunity of vanity and self-indulgence?

 

I am sorry the world is changing, and not to your liking. But, that is the "side effect" of freedom.

[normandie7]

Men who put highlights in their hair.

There isn't a bargpole long enough...

[SamTherapy]

While some are definitely sans any genuine talent (e.g. Tom Cruise, who can read lines satisfactorily enough but is in no sense a great acting talent), I think one can also blame other factors such as the demand of the audience.

 

My own personal opinion is that there has been a progressively deliberate lowering of the standard (i.e. 'dumbing-down') of the masses, and, subsequently, a self-perpetuating campaign catering to what I regard as 'Low-attention-span Cinema,' which has relegated distinct talent (e.g. Johnny Depp & Jude Law) to roles in which they excel but fail to fully realise their genuine presence potentials. Sometimes, though, some actors choose to perform beyond the limitations offered by the mainstream (e.g. Chocolat & Wilde in the case of the previous examples given), and it is then when they truly do shine with unsupported brilliance.

 

Myself, I too do enjoy, say, a Pirates of the Caribbean swashbuckler, immensely, yet I can step out of my appreciation to realise that Captain Blood did not depend on computer-generated special effects to be riveting and worthwhile; instead, that film engaged an audience more with greater-developed characters and with the substance relayed in the intercourse between those characters.

 

My disappointment with modern-day, mainstream cinema is that '**** and explosions' have come to replace personality and aesthetics. But because a dumb-downed audience creates a demand for 'T&E' (not much unlike the Colisseum audience of Ancient Rome demanded mindless, wholesale slaughter), who's to blame?

 

It is apparent, though, when someone like a Bruce Willis can be regarded as a 'star,' that methinks that something is (clearly) rotten in the state of Denmark.

 

I think the modern-day, quality actors are better served by their craft via character-roles in 'art-house' films (e.g. Steve Buscemi, Willem Dafoe, Tim Roth, Gary Oldman, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Thomas Jane, William Macy [although, all of these actors have certainly had their dalliances in mainstream cinema, their more substantive works are less known, I think, by the masses]).

[TOOMANYNOTES]

'

 

Message was edited by:

TOOMANYNOTES

[coolrob1955]

There are lot's of actors (male and female) who. no matter where they are, will always be with someone they love. I'm sure most of them will be mentioned here.

 

I have to agree with SamTherapy about the generally very low standards of current movies (there are always a few exceptions).

 

One upshot is that classic actors like Spencer Tracy or James Cagney couldn't get work as janitors in today's Hollywood. I can't see where they would fit in.

 

Regards

[jarhfive]

TOOMANYNOTES,

 

I will be the first to reply, as follows:

 

Regarding Mr. Beatty...Carly Simon agrees with you.

 

Rusty

[msladysoul]

I agree with all of you on this topic. It seems women are becoming men and men are becoming women in a way. I can't see any of the classic legend movie stars being stars in today's era without degrading themselves. I think Johnny Depp probably is the best potential actor. Everything today is filled with unnecessary sex, tv, movies, music, even cartoons. Kids can't watch anything decent anymore. Most young kids don't know what real cartoons are. If there isn't any cursing, bloody violence, nudity and sex in a TV show or movie then it won't be successful. It seems today many are watching classic movies, watching TV shows from the 50's, 60's, and 70's, listening to music from by-gone years because many are fed up with the filth on TV today. Many young ones are adopting the classic era type of entertainment now. There are more young adults into classic entertainment then anyone other age group now. They wish like me movie stars, singers, dancers, and tv could be like they were in the 30's,40's,50's,60's and 70's. Even my mother is starting to watch older movies and TV shows now because the entertainment on today isn't worth the time. If I were an actress today I would feel likewhy can't I be like the classic actresses why do I have to degrade myself or do mediocre films. I would feel so inferior compared to the classic actresses. Today, women and men just like to be stars, back in the golden era they liked being a star too but as Bette Davis said they had to earn the right to be called a star and worked even harder to keep being a star.

 

I hate this reality generation. I like classic movies and music because it takes me out of reality and into fantasy in a way. Entertainment use to take your mind off your troubles but today it reminds of the ugly world more and more. Real actors and actresses of today can't even get work on TV much anymore because people from off the street who want five minutes fame are taking over on the reality shows.

 

As far as vain actors I think Cary Grant, Clark Gable knew they looked good and had "It" but they didn't have to talk about it or look in the mirror all day, they proved their greatness through their work.

[JonParker]

My disappointment with modern-day, mainstream cinema is that '**** and explosions' have come to replace personality and aesthetics. But because a dumbed-downed audience creates a demand for 'T&E' (not much unlike the Colisseum audience of Ancient Rome demanded mindless, wholesale slaughter), who's to blame?

 

Film professor Thomas Doherty* makes an argument that this was a natural evolution. In the 1950s the rise of television and the evolution of the teenage market led to films aiming more at a juvenile audience -- parents with children were more likely to stay home and watch TV for entertainment, so movies that teens were apt to see became more commonplace, even if they weren't the primary market. Note that there are plenty of exceptions, but we're talking general trends here.

 

In fact, the indie market is booming right now. Actors like Depp do indie work because they want to, even though the money isn't even close to what they make on PotC. They alternate between working for the money and working for their art.

 

Audiences have changed. The bulk of the movie going audience is now teens and young adults, so it's no surprise that the movies that are made cater to their tastes. Also, TV is better than ever and aimed more at adults. As people mature, they tend to move over to TV and away from going out to theaters.

 

Just in the last few years, I see more good movies aimed at adults being made (I want to say "adult movies" without the obvious porn connotations). I think that's due to the rise of DVD and videotape allowing adults to watch films at home without having find babysitters.

 

As Theodore Sturgeon famously said, "90 percent of everything is crap." That was true in the past, and it's true now. Ever spend a sick day watching old programmers on TCM?

 

Also, I'm totally in favor of ****, although explosions do get boring after a while.

 

*Teenagers and Teenpics: The Juvenilization of American Movies in the 1950s

[RockyRoad]

.

 

Message was edited by:

RockyRoad

[deeanddaisy666]

Sam, Jon and classic, you're all 100% on the mark, and have said it so well there's nothing left for me to say!

[montgomery4me]

I just read an article in Britian?s Sunday Telegraph Sunday magazine, `Seven` where Leslie Dixon, a screenwriter spoke about working on ``Pay it Forward``

A brief exerpt:

(in regards to Kevin Spacey and Helen Hunt)... Helen was charming until the first moment I disgreed with her. Her mouth set, her eyes grew hard, and she never again demonstrated the slightest pretence of civility. Anyone who said anything but `yes` to her was the enemy.

Immediately, Kevin let me know my caste, During our first meeting, he made phone calls, without ever saying `Excuse me`, or acknowledging that a person was sitting there. I was wallpaper. Finally off the phone, he announced that he wanted a change in his character: `I think he should be a good teacher and really connect with those kids.`

My heart sank. I mentioned, gingerly, that moral transformations did seem more powerful when the happen to cynical people. Well, he?d played a lot of cynical people. He wanted to be cuddly. He also wanted more about how his character had been physically scarred by his father. He did not say, ?Give me a big, scenery-chewing speach?, but I got the message. Can?t win the Oscar without talking a lot!

Helen?s first of many demands was that she be seen not as a tenuously recovered alcoholic but still fighting the demons of the bottle. Again, I was distraught: drunk scenes - territory covered bo so many actresses in so many movies.

One morning she took me aside `My therapist says this character?s a classic case of a person molested as a child. And it?s important to me that this be made clear...on camera... in dialogue.?

``You do realise that this would make duelling child -abuse backstories for you and Kevin.??

It didn?t matter. she wanted her own under-age grope. Resigned, I began making the script worse...

... The week before production I spent in Las Vegas for what were supposedly rehearsals. In fact, it was, in Helen?s words, a ?script autopsy?. Kevin gave me a 45-minute soliloquy, the end result of which was that he wanted one line changed. Occasionally, I was yelled at, more often, ignored. No one said a personal word to me - even knee-jerk courtesies like ?hello? and ?goodbye? had gone by the wayside. I quit.

.... Soon after, a Wall Street Journal reporter began poking around, curious as to why the film had flopped. He quickly determined that the actors had been calling the shots. In the ensuing article, he observed that perhaps Mr. Spacey?s judgment about corniness wasn?t entirely to be trusted and quoted a scene that he had improvised. Phones rang. The Powers That Be were raging. That speech was cut! How could the reporter have seen it? Oops. Well, I guess someone gave him the shooting script.

As if in apology, the Movie Gods next threw me Steve Martin. I wrote my brains out for him, turned it in. He called the next day. Just wanted to say how pleased he was.

Perhaps an interesting commentary on how the vanity of actors may affect their career in the long run.

[TOOMANYNOTES]

.

 

Message was edited by:

TOOMANYNOTES

[CineSage_jr]

The original script, which I've read, was vastly better. This was a classic example of an inmate taking over the asylum.

[TOOMANYNOTES]

.

 

Message was edited by:

TOOMANYNOTES

[SamTherapy]

My argument against the so-called natural evolution of the matter is that it is not evolutionary, that it is not natural but, is, rather, unnatural, that it is is exploitation not evolution.

 

It is a prime example of the fallacy of unbridled and capitalistic exploitation (i,e. just because an agency can profit by exploiting the impressionable does not mean that it should do so).

 

We the people put up no fuss outside of masturbatory message-board postings, so . . . why should the Powers-That-Be feel responsible?

 

But such a concept of moral societal-regulation (in lieu of moral self-regulation by the producers) is labelled 'Communistic' and 'UnAmerican' by neocons who confuse democracy with plutocracy.

 

Meanwhile, the future of America is likely to be one of a dumb-downed populace happy to tolerate unConstitutional diminishment of civil rights, so long as (for example) the next Spider-Man sequel is action-packed . . . and distracting.

[katyscar11ett]

Vain actors? I've got better things to do than discuss Tom Cruise, right now. That is the topic, isn't it?

[katyscar11ett]

I could not disagree more (without throwing punches, that is hehehe)

 

I thought Spacey was fantastic as Bobby Darin - one of my all-time idols. I cried when Darin died - and had a miserable Christmas that year. In fact, Beyond the Sea was the very first DVD I ever purchased. I found the story to be a bit slow, but Spacey's performance was award worthy, IMO.

 

 

I did read the article, written by the English woman, that was posted - and I will leave that open until I hear more - but I won't disregard it. Although, it hurts me to hear that Spacey acted this way (if he did). He is one of my favorite modern actors.

 

 

Once again, that's why we all have our own opinions.

[TOOMANYNOTES]

.

 

Message was edited by:

TOOMANYNOTES

[katyscar11ett]

[TOOMANYNOTES]

.

 

Message was edited by:

TOOMANYNOTES

[katyscar11ett]