There are movies I like that I didn’t expect to like. Usually it’s a movie starring someone for whom I do not care. Someone who is a STAR. There are certainly STARs who can act, but it seems most of the time that a STAR’s talent is secondary or even tertiary to the fact of their STARdom. I’m not totally sure they have any talent at all, but then I see them in a film and I can’t believe how totally different they are. How unlike their usual crap and I wonder, if they can generate the acting they do in this film, why don’t they do this all the time.
Take, for instance, Will Ferrell. I do not care for Will Ferrell. I don’t “get” the comedy he does, I don’t find it funny and I really don’t think he acts the comedy very well when he’s doing it. He tends to overdo everything. Then I saw “Stranger Than Fiction.” I have to wonder where he found this amazing performance? Was it the director he had?
I had a similar experience with Peter Sellers. I might be in the minority, but I do not find the Pink Panther films at all funny. I don’t care for slapstick and I don’t care for Peter Sellers. Then I saw “Being There.” Wow. Where was the person who played Chance the Gardener hiding for all those years?
My third person who turned in a performance better befitting an amazing actor instead of a STAR is Mickey Rooney. He is always all over the top in the “let’s put on a show” movies and in the Andy Hardy films to which I’ve never been able to relate. Don’t even get me started on his acting in “Boys Town.” For me, Mickey Rooney was all broad strokes, no nuances. Then I saw an old black and white movie called, “The Human Comedy” and even though the movie tended toward over sentimentalization, Rooney’s performance was outstanding. I couldn’t see “Mickey” anywhere in the role of Homer Macauley. He was nominated for Best Actor for this role and it’s the best thing I’ve ever seen him do. Did the studio keep sticking him in films that made them money instead of taking too many chances on their STAR, their investment? I have to think so.
Last, but not least, Lana Turner. If ever the studios produced a STAR, it was Lana. She wasn’t allowed to do any role that might diminish the polish and the glitter with which she was surrounded. It is truly was a shame and a waste of the talent she rarely got to use. Yes, she did a great job in “The Postman Always Rings Twice,” but she was astounding in “The Bad and the Beautiful.” And I’d no idea Lana was so freaking funny until I saw “Slightly Dangerous” and watched the long section that starts when she is walking down the street trying out possibilities for new names through when she gets clobbered by a can of paint and wakes up to notice there is red paint in the hair on which she just spent her last dollar to have dyed blonde. Her reaction is priceless.
So, here’s hoping there are more opportunities for STARs to act.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
These are all excellent examples of STARs who can suprisingly act. One you probably wouldn't think of is Tom Cruise. I know, I know the Cruzer is all big smile and intensity instead of acting, but over the years he learned something about acting, probably by osmosis. In "Colateral" he toned the whole thing down to a manageable level. There may be room for him amongst character actors once he gets to be about sixty.
Tom Cruise's performances are only as good as his haircut. (The hair in "Magnolia" hot - his performance? You guessed it - hot)
My actors who I don't like, but who end up in tons of movies I love:
Melanie Griffith and Nicole Kidman. Can't stand the lot of them. But own many of the movies they STAR in.
Post a Comment