In The Night of the Hunter, serial killer, Harry Powell's (Robert Mitchum) slightly-raised eyebrow is genius, the tiny movement revealing his heartlessness. To those who've seen the film, even still photos of Mitchum in character resend Powell's bone-chilling indifference to life.
Another fine example of communicative expression occurs in The Devil Wears Prada when Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep) smugly and finalistically hummed, "Um-huh," not quite under her breath, making audiences frown. Streep's acting was brilliant: anything more or less alters the message.
What other actors in a particular role – as opposed to say, Bruce Willis' role-to-role, smart-assed half-smile – use a powerful, signature expression – including facial, verbal, or body language – to define a specific character? What does the expression communicate? Are there actors able to reproduce this mastery via different expressions for different roles? In which roles? With which expressions?
First I could think of is Al Pacino in The Godfather Part II. In most of his scenes he's silent, seated, listening to others speak or thinking by himself. Yet even if his actions don't vary much, his brooding face express so many emotions: anger, shock, pain, amusement, and even when he's worried. Still one of Pacino's best, and establishes Michael Corleone's taking over of their family business – Joie8 years ago
A great film for this topic is Caché. Haneke is a master director and auteur, he always gets supreme performance out of his actors. Caché has minimal dialogue -- forcing his actors to use their eyes to convey emotion. Maybe include the interest of foreign films particularly -- since, if the viewer doesn't understand the language, they must rely solely on physical performance (besides subtitles). – Brandon T. Gass8 years ago
On October 15, 2016, it will be the 99th anniversary of the execution of Mata Hari, a Parisian dancer convicted of pro-German espionage against France.
The question is, what is the/are the greatest spy movie(s) of all time? Why? And what is it about a spy movie that make them so thrilling? You can comment on only one, or several if you are up on the genre.
Below is the list of Top Ten Spy Movies compiled by Esquire Magazine. You don't have to consult this list, but it's there if you want or need it.
10. The Ipcress File (1965) 9. No Way Out (1987) 8. The Bourne Identity (2002) 7. Notorious (1946) 6. Three Days Of The Condor (1975) 5. From Russia With Love (1963) 4. Zero Dark Thirty (2012) 3. North By Northwest (1959) 2. The Lives Of Others (2006) 1. The Third Man (1949)
Personally, I'd have to add Hitchcock's "The 39 Steps," but I'd watch a Hitchcock movie even if he showed up in it.
It might also be worth looking at Mata Hari, the fact that she was a performer, so would be a great subject for film, yet no films about her that spring to mind. Perhaps it could be addressed as a 'Great Women Spy Movies' (although Charlotte Grey and Spy are the only two that spring to mind...) – Francesca Turauskis8 years ago
Kind of want to add The Man from UNCLE (2015), just because it is incredibly stylish, and style has almost always been a brand of spy movies (I think) – Joie8 years ago
Sausage Party, an R-rated animated feature, has provoked controversy since its release earlier this month. Many critics say that the film makes distasteful use of ethnic, religious and sexual stereotypes, perpetuating offensive associations that have long plagued Hollywood and western culture generally. However, as some of defenders of the film have pointed out, the characters in Sausage Party are not human beings, but rather products made by humans, and so represent and enact the assumptions embedded in the society that produced them. Such being the case, the defenders go on, the world in which the film takes place offers a space to explore the relation between these stereotypes and the culture from which they emerge.
Is Sausage Party an offensive film? Is its play with stereotype clever, or just lazy? Is it totally out of line, or does it constitute a legitimate satire of Hollywood's tendency to depend on stereotype?
Sorry Tigey, I tried to edit the post, but it doesn't seem to have stuck. After "clever, or just lazy" I meant to add: That is to say, are the filmmakers in control of the social implications of their use of stereotype, and if so, to what end do they evoke them? – TKing8 years ago
If you send a message to misagh, he help you. – Tigey8 years ago
Washington, Colorado, Alaska, and Oregon have legalized pot, and other states are sure to follow. Libertarians and liberals say, "About time," while conservatives fear the slippery slope-influence of a "gateway drug." Which movies do the best job of either satirizing unnecessary fears of recreational drug use, or portraying the horrors of drug use? Which films do you think offer the most realistic portrayal of the use of alcohol, pot, cocaine, LSD (or other hallucinogens such as psilocybin mushrooms, peyote, etc.), and heroin, respectively? Why?
No discussion of this subject would be complete without mentioning the 1936 propaganda film, Reefer Madness, and the 2005 musical parody film of the same name. Together, they cover the full spectrum of hyper-conservativism and liberal satire. It is especially important to address how the former was rediscovered in the 1970s and usurped by youth culture as an "easy target for mocking" cult film, which ultimately gave rise to the latter. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Thanks. I'm writing an article about Offensive comedy right now and it's interesting to see George Carlin's remarks about drugs. He didn't do a complete 180, but he did say there's a point where the pain outweighed the pleasure. One of my favorite Carlin jokes about drugs is: "The problem with people petitioning about marijuana laws is that they can't remember where they put the petitions." – Tigey8 years ago
I'm attached to this - even made a feature film on it myself with "Cleaners" back in 2011. I think there are many films with realistic depictions, but then some sensationalized work that makes for them less on realism and more as some kind of animated (and often comical) touch on a story that isn't interested in legitimacy. "The Panic in Needle Park", with Al Pacino and Kitty Winn, is a great film. It shows their aimlessness - and their hope for one another in a way that is unheard of during such a pinnacle post-"Midnight Cowboy" / Warhol and Morrissey cinema of neo-realism. – reesepd8 years ago
reesepd,
I'll see if I can find "Cleaners." It seems right now we're caught between the perils of self-medication and the medical industry pimping truth for the pharmaceuticals. – Tigey8 years ago
I think "Requiem for a Dream" would be a perfect movie to illustrate the horrors of drug use. The horrific ending alone would perfectly show how drugs completely destroy people’s lives, as well as showing the highs of the drugs too (demonstrating why people choose to take them). "Trainspotting" is another example of a movie that shows a lot of the horrors of drug use (the toilet scene alone), as well as the obsessive nature of drugs. It could also be interesting to use this film, because the sequel is coming out at the beginning of next year, so it is relevant to bring up the original. – ojc1318 years ago
Into the Woods, The Last Five Years, Les Miserables, Rent: in the past few years alone, there have been multiple movie musicals released, often with mixed receptions. Is it possible for musicals to move from the stage to the screen and still retain their magic? What might some challenges be? (i.e. target audience; musical fans perhaps disliking casting when people who are not traditionally "singers" are cast – think Hollywood actors rather than Broadway, cutting songs for the sake of time, sound editing causing the magic of a live performance to be lost, etc.)
Sweeney Todd could also be discussed, since Johnny Depp isn't traditionally a singer, and his delivery is different and not as robust than, say, George Hearn, though arguably the vibrato may not be as necessary on film than it is on a stage. – Emily Deibler8 years ago
It is definitely difficult for musicals to transfer to film. Often times I would agree that it is a failure and mainly because the people that are heavily critiquing the film may have seem the Broadway version and it is impossible to emote the same feelings that are created when watching a musical live onto the screen. However, when I first saw Chicago the film, I think they did a phenomenal job with it and it may be because they kept some of the songs to maintain that live theater feeling in the way it was choreographed and presented. – Naomster78 years ago
The struggle with musicals being transferred to film is that the excitement and raw talent that is present in live theater has been cut. It is just another film with singing and dancing in it and the awe of the story being performed live has died. However, the film Chicago, did a fantastic job of recreating the scenes and musical numbers as they would have appeared while viewing them in Broadway. The film was able to portray all of the talent that goes in to live theater.
I think another to consider as well with this topic, is the concept of if musicals designed for film can be transferred to Broadway? – Naomster78 years ago
Good topic! Although there are a couple of musical movies I enjoyed, I think musical should remain in the stage, with live performances and audience. Using famous actors who have zero musical talent just takes the magic away from it for sure. – Nilab Ferozan8 years ago
I think, as most have stated here, the biggest problem here is the reliance on "big name" actors, as opposed to truly gifted signers who are truly broadway stars. Yet, with that being said. A broadway actor is an actor, but there is a different format of stage acting that takes place that does not always translate well through cinema. This is kind of an odd catch-22. Overtime these beloved musical become cinematic adaptations, we, the audience, typically seem to be left disappointed. My favorite musicals are the ones from the 40's and 50's, when the amalgam between film and musical was a natural genre. – danielle5778 years ago
The trend of showing just about everything in media, even if it seems unnecessary. I'm not talking about censoring, but about limiting the audience's act of imagination to fill in the rest of the picture. What happens when a level of subtlety, implicitness, and mystery is lost? I was thinking of some classic black-and-white films such as M, The Innocents, Nosferatu, The Third Man, Gaslight, etc. whose atmosphere is heavily reliant on what is shrouded by shadow. A lot of suspense, dread, as well as intrigue is created by what we can't see. When many movies now are so well-lit and in high-definition color, has something been lost? It seems like there is a strong desire to expose and reveal as much as we can instead. Has this transition affected how movies are filmed in other ways?
This is a great topic, and I do agree. The unspoken leads to contemplation, inquiry, and suspense. Though people fixate on the evolution of film technology, which is without a doubt extraordinarily impressive, some of basic cinematic concepts that make film so wonderful have been lost--what you are posing here is one. – danielle5778 years ago
Interesting but if you pay attention to independent film(not commercial ones) they still adopt fade to black in their scenes. Maybe not common but it doesnt mean no more. When i 'm writing my script, I would sometimes use fade to black and fade in for transitions. I dont think it is fully abandoned. – moonyuet8 years ago
I definitely agree with what you're saying about independent films. I'm not just talking about transitions, though, but about the general use of shadows or unseen areas in movies. I feel like we as an audience are often granted greater access to scenes we either would not have been shown before or would not be able to view with as much clarity, which is probably especially true in the case of commercial films. I hadn't intended to sound like I was making a generalization about all recent movies, just that it was a trend I had noticed. Sorry for not making myself clearer in that regard. – aprosaicpintofpisces8 years ago
imdb.com has many user-posted lists, and one of them is a list of the 25 Best Actors of the 21st Century. The list below excerpts their top 25, which includes late greats Heath Ledger and Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Are there any glaring omissions? Is there anyone on the list who shouldn’t be? Anyone need to move up or down? What makes an actor either worthy of your list or unworthy of this list? For your favorites, please describe their best performances. For your least favorites, please explain their shortcomings. If you want to deal only with the top ten or pick and choose, that’s fine too.
1. Daniel Day-Lewis 2. Leonardo DiCaprio 3. Philip Seymour Hoffman 4. Jack Nicholson 5. Morgan Freeman 6. Russell Crowe 7. George Clooney 8. Javier Bardem 9. Brad Pitt 10. Christian Bale 11. Jeff Bridges 12. Sean Penn 13. Joaquin Phoenix 14. Heath Ledger 15. Johnny Depp 16. Denzel Washington 17. Tom Hanks 18. Clint Eastwood 19. Geoffrey Rush 20. Colin Firth 21. Viggo Mortensen 22. Tom Wilkinson 23. Gary Oldman 24. Bill Murray 25. Don Cheadle
Perhaps shorten the list to a top 5 or a top 10 at the most; otherwise, your work would be overwhelmingly long. – J.D. Jankowski8 years ago
Good point. One reason I included the last sentence of the descrption... – Tigey8 years ago
Is there a more up to date listing? Writing an article about a 2014 listing seems quite after the fact. Otherwise, sounds like a fun article. – LondonFog8 years ago
I think the writer did a great job posting this, but I feel like the list should condense down to top 10 because then it would be able to seek the audience attention. Personally, I don't like Bill Murray!! – mmq28 years ago
How is Tom Hanks #17?--the man is a chameleon!! A relatively solid list, but I would definitely delete Russel Crowe and move Viggo Mortensen way up the list. Also, whomever takes on this topic should only take on part of this list or an aspect dealing with this list. – danielle5778 years ago
Agree on all three counts, danielle577. I still hold a private grudge against Leonard Maltin for panning Forrest Gump. And Hanks' performance in Road to Perdition was one of his best (and perhaps Paul Newman's very best). How about the omission of Forrest Whitaker? James McAvoy? Benicio Del Toro? Jude Law? Laurence Fishburne? My Top Ten is now in triple digits. – Tigey8 years ago
For what it's worth, perhaps the best piece of acting I've seen in a Hollywood movie in years is Matthew McConaughey's lunch scene with Leonardo DiCaprio in The Wolf of Wall Street. McConaughey would be on my list. – Tigey8 years ago
In June 2012, imdb.com posted its list of 25 Best Actresses of the 21st Century. Any glaring omissions? Anyone on it who shouldn't be? Anyone need to move up or down? What makes an actress either worthy of your list or unworthy of this list? For your favorites, please describe their best performances. For your least favorites, please explain their shortcomings. If you want to deal only with the top ten or pick and choose, that's fine too. Extra love for anyone who can explain, sanely, why Tilda Swinton's not on this list – for her Broken Flowers performance alone (c'mon, you didn't know she was in the film 'til the credits, right?) – gets an e-high five.
1. Helena Bonham Carter 2. Natalie Portman 3. Meryl Streep 4. Renée Zellweger 5. Sandra Bullock 6. Nicole Kidman 7. Hilary Swank 8. Emma Stone 9. Cate Blanchett 10. Jennifer Lawrence 11. Gwyneth Paltrow 12. Scarlett Johansson 13. Kate Hudson 14. Mila Kunis 15. Anne Hathaway 16. Amanda Seyfried 17. Keira Knightley 18. Kristen Stewart 19. Julia Roberts 20. Milla Jovovich 21. Noomi Rapace 22. Octavia Spencer 23. Rachel McAdams 24. Dakota Fanning 25. Drew Barrymore
I feel like Viola Davis should've been included. She always brings such dignity and emotional weight to her roles. – Emily Deibler8 years ago
I have never thought of Anne Hathaway as one of the best actresses of any century. I think her acting is one of an intermingling between trying too hard and arrogance. – sydneelarson8 years ago
One test of an actor is how she looks when playing opposite a great actor. For Hathaway the obvious challenge was The Devil Wears Prada with the incomparable Meryl Streep, one of my favorites, and I think Hathaway was fine. Who knows, maybe working with Streep is playing basketball with Bill Russell, who made his teammates better. A case in point, regarding Streep, might be Kevin Kline's fine performance with Streep in Sophie's Choice. – Tigey8 years ago
I also agree that Viola Davis should have been included in this list, definitely since Emma Stone (nothing against Emma because I love her and she has had some great performances) has made top 10. – NyeMaxwell8 years ago
I feel that Mila Kunis isn't deserving of this list. She isn't a terrible actress, but I don't see her as one of the best. – Jai Modo8 years ago
