Tuesday, January 20, 2009


Cross reference each actor with a list of the Top 100 films (your list, The National Film Critics list, AFI, just something); how many Top 100 films is each actor in?

Evaluate range; is DeNiro the same character in each of his top movies? No. Does he have good performances across a range of genres? I would say yes.

Subtract points NOT for bad films but BAD performances in BAD films; thus Oldman can't be blamed if JFK gets crushed under the weight of Kevin Costner. His performance as Oswald is terrific.

Tiebreaker? Boxoffice. Possibly Oscars.

Holla back.

1 comment:

T. Azimuth Schwitters said...

I agree about the importance of:

Dramatic/Comedic Range
Number of Good Performances
Importance of Being in Good/Great Movies

I also think I would put more importance on nominations for major awards; although awards don't tell the whole story, they still reflect the opinions of a pretty knowledgeable bunch of insiders--who better to lift up actors than other actors?

I'm (as usual) in disagreement with you over box office--I don't think it matters two cents if an actor is profitable, especially given the different financial expectations of films in different genres (i.e.-independent films and dramas don't make much bank; action movies and comedies do, etc.).

My criteria:

1. Quality of specific performances
2. Number of exceptional performances
3. Range/Willingness to take risks
4. Influence on other actors, both of his/her time and later
5. Ability to AVOID specifically BAD performances (that's you, Michael Caine) and, to some extent, BAD movies (I'm looking at you, Diane Keaton)

1. Awards received.

What say you, sir?