Boyz (Not) 2 Men
From The Hot Button…
I am certainly not the first person to point out that this is the state of machismo in Hollywood these days. The top five movies of this year are male leads by Tobey Maguire, Mike Myers, Johnny Depp, Shia LeBouff, and Daniel Radcliffe. There might be plenty to love or lust at for any of these men, but machismo is not a part of the equation. They might outthink you, but don’t expect to see a fist from a-one of them.
Even with 300, we are led by the super-CG-ripped Gerard Butler … aka The Phantom. When Bob Zemeckis looks for his Beowulf, he gets the grand and macho Ray Winstone … and then makes his body young and ripped with the computer.
The only two stars who push the machismo button in films that have grossed over $50 million this year are Matt Damon as the moody, emotional Jason Bourne and Bruce Willis, still pushing a shaved head and a 3-day growth in Live Free or Die Hard.
It wasn’t much better last year, though we got a new, edgier Bond in Daniel Craig (who often goes against machismo in his other roles), a visit from Rocky Balboa, and Borat wrestling nude with a 350 pound dude. On the fop side, Leo tried to get tough in Blood Diamond, Colin Farrell burned off what seemed to be the last of his macho currency in Miami Vice, Jack Black in tights, Vince Vaughn emasculated by the former Mrs. Pitt, Tom Cruise emasculated by a weak script and an ancient Sumner Redstone, Hanks with comedy hair, and even the muscular Will Smith as a man scraping his life back together (though no one would ever call the real Chris Gardner anything less than stinking of macho, even in pastel shirts).
It kind of makes sense that Bond and The Departed were so successful last year. They were the last bastion of manliness in the movie universe.
That and a pair of testicles
This is an issue that I think volumes will be written about someday and has much to do with generational concepts of masculinity.
Nevertheless, sadly, the short answer is that ‘macho’ is defined as dumb; whereas man/boy is defined as ‘complex’.
The truth is both can be either but Hollywood is not really in a place to recognize that right now.
DeNiro, Pacino, Crowe etc. are undeniable macho actors yet can anyone call them dumb?
Similarly, it was man/boy Jake Gyllenhaal’s inability to project a more three dimensional gravitas that actually dragged down Zodiac’s final third (although overall I love the film).
I think that is also why actors who could inherit the mantle of ‘macho’ Butler, Crowe, Neeson, Craig, Owen are afraid to do so and for every macho film, then seem to make 3 sensitive ones.
But I even reject the term ‘macho’. I do not need/want my male leads to push a grapefruit in a woman’s face. That’s just bullshit. BUT, I would like to have male leads who look confident in their masculinity, make no apologies for it and carry a certain weight or gravitas about them.
Think of how much better a film like The Departed would have been if you had say, Russell Crowe or Nic Cage in the leads over Damon and lil’Leo (I will always laugh when he has a gun).
Macho or masculine does not have to be dumb or brutish. William L Petersen in To Live and Die in LA and Manhunter, two 80’s greats, is macho/masculine up the wazoo, but he is smarter and more intellectually dexterous than most other characters in modern manboy films who we are supposed to see as smart. Howabout Gene Hackman; undeniably masculine, undeniably complex.
I love Johnny Depp, but his pushing of the fey button, one too many times, ultimatley hurts the Pirates series overall. What was in the first film a clever decision, became tired and annoying by the third.
I don’t forsee change anytime soon. Not with the current crowd in Hollywood. I would argue that it is not just the current generation of males that are afflicted with this problem (although there is some of that). It is also that Hollywood goes out of its way to hire those males for reasons that are vast and complex and cultural.
I figure by 2009 we’ll be seeing Zac Effron take the lead in a remake of Steve McQueen’s The Great Escape…Laugh, if you will…but do you really think that is unrealistic in current Hollywood? He’d probably get an Oscar nod for it.
Nicol, I love Nic Cage more than most (I find Crowe boring unless he’s playing against the “masculine” type you seem to adore so much — he’s terrific in The Insider, for example), but I don’t think you’ll find anyone, including/especially me, who would agree that The Departed would’ve been better with Crowe and Cage. That’s an entirely different movie. The youth of those characters is key, looking at the Damon character’s desire to start a normal family life, and the Leo character’s rootlessness. Do you really find Damon unconvincing as someone masculine and intimidating? Is that just because you have goofy ideological problems with the Bourne series? (Though I actually agree with you that they’re somewhat overrated.)
I really think the Leo thing is just you by now. Did you see a lot of reactions to The Departed that said “man, I just couldn’t take Leo seriously as an adult cop; I wished it were Nic Cage”? Or did you read reviews that said, holy shit, Leo has really made the transition to more adult roles? I read a lot of the latter. I wouldn’t blame Scorsese or Leo for your laughter when Leo holds a gun. He owned that role and both actors were terrific in the movie. DiCaprio and Damon are both exactly what you’re talking about — masculine, but still complex and intelligent and far from brutish. And the more appropriate example you give — Depp’s feyness in the Pirates series — doesn’t really make sense, because (a.) Depp is fairly chameleonic so a choice in one series doesn’t really define the rest of his career and (b.)
Your complaints seem like a whole lot of ado about nothing to me. So the more traditionally masculine actors like Clive Owen and Daniel Craig do as many “sensitive” pictures as masculine ones… um, so what? Did you ever think that actors might not be interested in doing the same thing over and over? Why do you assume this is out of “fear”?
It was frustrating to see Daniel Craig constrained into a nothing part in The Invasion, absolutely. But getting poorly cast in a poorly written part has happened to actors since the dawn of acting.
What’s cooler? The less than macho guy that can turn it on to kick ass? Or the macho guy? I will always take the former. Macho guys went out of fashion the moment MACHO MAN stopped being popular. Although; Black Machismo is rather popular these days. One last thing; only a brother who rocks a gold chain and his shirts so flagrantly open… could post such column. For those about to BUTCH OUT; I SALUTE YOU!
Don’t forget DeNiro’s performance in “Stardust.” (shudder)
Vic
I don’t agree with much of Nicol’s post– I don’t miss the days of 80s macho men, like Schwarzenegger, Stallone, etc. They were fun but we’ve moved on. When you have somebody trying it today, you end up with something ridiculous like Stone Cold Steve Austin.
Although he mentioned Crowe, who I think can bring it when he wants to. Denzel Washington is the same.
But I do agree with Nicol’s opinion on Dicaprio in Departed. It was one of his best performances, but I still felt he was miscast. He looks so young.
Damon, though, was awesome.
Ah, but even Steve Austin was a reluctant ‘warrior’ in The Condemned. I’ve seen the movie, and it’s vastly underrated (in that it’s ‘not too bad’). Only when the bad guys do a couple really terrible things does he start to actively engage in the action. Until that point, he’s trying to survive and get off the island and get back to the woman he was living with before he ‘disappeared’. Point being, he’s not a quip-spouting bad-ass who wants to kill as many people as possible. He just wants to survive and get back to his girlfriend and her kids.
I will say that the reviews absolutely infuriated me on this one. Nearly every review babbled incessantly about the hypocrisy of condemning our need to voyeuristic ally watch violence and pain while allegedly rubbing our noses in violence and gore. Except that the movie does not do this in the least. Yes there is fighting and killing and the usual action movie tripes. But nearly every particularly nasty violent scene is either completely off screen or shot in a way that leaves most of the imagery to the imagination. That by itself earned this b-movie action film a lot of points in my book.
That most critics either didn’t notice this or completely ignored this represents yet another case of critics apparently not actually paying attention to the movie and simply going with their preconceived notions (I can’t count how often I read reviews where the writers get basic plot elements wrong).
Scott Mendelson
The problem isn’t a ebb of machismo, but a diminishment of basic masculinity (of which machismo is an exaggeration). We’re just seeing the emasculation of a generation on screen. Its not the emphasis of more feminine qualities in males, but the rejection of traditional male characteristics as primitive and detrimental.
Jesse,
1. I don’t care what the majority of critics think. Most eat up DiCaprio because we no longer have a proper measuring stick to rate him against. He gets put in tough guy roles because he so desperately wants to be the new DeNiro…which he is not. Leo wears his little peach fuzz stubble in these roles precisely because he does – not – look like a man with gravitas.
2. If I were casting a film looking for 3rd frat boy to the right, I would cast Damon. Tough guy…uh no. If you think that is because of my politics…well then I can just as easily say that you like him for the same reason. Last time I checked, DeNiro, Pacino and Washington were not card carrying conservatives. I love’em all. But they are of a different generation and that is what we are talking about even if you want to make it political.
3. If my complaints seem like a whole lot to do about nothing…then why am I not the only one talking about it. Quite the opposite, more and more people – are – noticing the lack of masculine actors in films. That is why Dave wrote this entry in the blog. Many people are talking about it. If you are fine with the stautus quo, that’s okay…but some of us are not. We want more complicated portrayals. We want a new Gene Hackman.
4. I never wrote anything about wanting to return to the days of 80’s type Cannon Group films etc. That’s why I used actors like Petersen and Hackman to make my argument.
Fact is, the new generation of male actors with few exceptions can’t shine Gene Hackman’s shoes for playing complex yet masculine characters. I would even throw in the young Dustin Hoffman and certainly Al Pacino. Don’t like my Cage/Crowe team up…fine, think of it with a young Pacino/DeNiro.
If Leo and Matt are our best…we are sorely lacking.
I may be wrong, but I always kind of traced the change in action stars to The Matrix. Neo was a computer nerd who ultimately, through programming became a fighting machine. But it wasn’t like he was anybody’s ideal of macho. He was more of a dweeb with lots of machine guns and kung fu moves.
It worked, I think, because Neo was more relatable to audiences than Arnold or Stallone. He wasn’t a fantasy hero, he was more tangible. Like an ordinary guy caught up in extraordinary circumstances.
And this trend has progressed to Heroes.
It only stands to reason that we have no men; after all, we have no women, either–just a bunch of airhead mannequins with toothpick limbs, helium voices and no pubic hair. We’ve gone from Lauren Bacall and Audrey Hepburn (teenagers who seemed to be in their 30s) to Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore (30s behaving like teens). This may be why the most grown-up women of late have been animated (Lisa and Marge Simpson, Bonnie Hunt in CARS, Janeane Garafolo in RATATOUILLE, Zooey Deschanel in SURF’S UP).
1. Ah, yes, I forgot that stubble is the true mark of… femininity? Youth? Poor acting? Maybe if you commented about anything in DiCaprio’s performance beside his looks (not even his physical acting — just his straight-up looks), I could see your point.
2. Actually, you couldn’t just as easily say I like Damon for political reasons because I haven’t ever held up the Bourne movies as political, for better or for worse; you have. I have no idea what Damon’s ideology is. But do you watch the Bourne movies and really think “oh, I don’t believe he’s kicking those people’s asses, he’s so generic and such a frat boy”? Maybe you do, but that would surprise me because I find him convincing in that role. My point is that because you have some political problems with the Bourne movies, you find it easier to dismiss Damon as a lightweight frat boy. He’s a perfectly credible killing machine in those movies.
3. Maybe I shouldn’t have personalized it to say that *your* complaints are much ado about nothing; I guess I should’ve said that these complaints in general are much ado about nothing (though you have harped on this in other threads). You say you don’t care that many people praised DiCaprio’s performance in The Departed; fair enough, but why do I have to care that more people than just you have complained about a lack of masculinity in the movies. (Also, when Dave wrote about it, it didn’t strike me as complaining so much as observing.) You’re also really vague about why these portrayals are so “uncomplicated.” Neither character in The Departed struck me as simplistic or easy. If anything, I think your definition of “masculine” sounds pretty narrow. Is Clive Owen too “sensitive” and not “masculine” enough in Children of Men? My point is that what you consider the “status quo” looks a lot more like variety to me. Is Russell Crowe *not* getting work? Is Christian Bale masculine enough for you? Gene Hackman — who is great — is an odd comparison because he wasn’t even particularly young when he came into prominence in the seventies.
4. I hope your last point was addressing someone else because I never mentioned any eighties action heroes in my response to you.
If the 80’s didn’t happen, I don’t think we’d be having this conversation. That decade had stars who were almost parodically masculine, but there were plenty of stars in the decades before them who really weren’t.
Even in the 80’s, look at the leads of the highest-grossing films. You had Henry Thomas as a boy, the boyish Mark Hamill, the eternally teenage Michael J. Fox, and comedian leads like Michael Keaton and Bill Murray who are about equivalent to your Mike Myers example. It’s really not as larded with so-called masculine men as you may have remembered.
So what exactly is being bemoaned here? And what the hell does “We can be charmed by these men, but expecting anything of them other than for them to simply exist tends to be problematic” mean? I get a lot more from the characters you named than that they “simply exist.” How does machismo relate to moral equivalency?
Again; MACHO is tired. Hell; there’s more Leonides than his buff appearance in 300. If you like rocking that chest hair and a pimp gold chain; good on you. However, MACHO, is nothing but lame swaggering bullshit. It always has been. It always will be. Especially in light of MACHO GUYS always being the most difficult mofos to deal with on any level.
I agree with much of Nicol’s concern about simplifying this to “dumb” and “complex.”
STARDUST SPOILER WARNING
But it is fascinating to me to see DeNiro in Stardust and Rhames in Chuck & Larry and how much better Rhames is in his turn.
Likewise, it is the weakness of 3:10 to Yuma, in my opinion, that you don’t really believe Crowe as a coldblooded killer… but in a very similar turn, you completely believe Danny Huston in The Proposition (the far superior version of the same moral idea), who is much more fey by nature as well as in the role itself (where he reads poetry aloud).
It’s NOT simple. But I do think it’s real.
We miss you, Tyler Durden…
It feels like certain people are dancing around the politics of this discussion, which is the basic subtext. I’ll take an anguished masculine man like Eric Bana in Munich over a simplistic Rambo imitator any day. We had 300 this year, which should have satisfied anyone’s need for absurdly cartoonish parodic masculinity fantasies ten times over.
But as Cadavra said, it’s part of the overall juvenilization of our culture and not something limited to ‘men’.
I started to write a response to this… and I kept writing… and kept writing… and the damn thing got so long that I decided to post it on my own blog, so I wouldn’t be accused of hogging the discussion.
A few quick points, though:
At this particular point in time, I wonder how many of us would find any overt on-screen display of macho to be, well, unimpressive. I mean, right now, we have real heroes fighting and dying in Iraq, where they get no retakes, and they were sent over there in the first place mostly by posturing macho types who never bothered to ever place their own sorry asses in harm’s way.
I would take issue with David’s dismissal of Toby Maguire, if only because of Maguire’s under-rated performance in Ang Lee’s extremely under-rated Ride with the Devil.
And as I argue over at my blog, the status quo David describes stems IMHO from a phenomenon that
Sure, Joe, but that makes it sound like a supply issue (not enough of a certain type of actor) when it’s more likely a demand issue (not enough good parts for that type of actor, not enough casting directors seeking them out).
I think that in this day and age of moral grey zones, audiences like to see more conflicted heroes on the screen. Those kinds of heroes are not typically played by the Sylvester Stallone/Arnold Schwarzenegger types. I don’t think audiences have matured to the point where they don’t want to see shit blow up, but I think they’d rather see someone they can relate to blow that shit up. Basically, I think most people can relate better to Matt Damon than Vin Diesel.
But, perhaps if Diesel and The Rock had made a few better choices or been offered better roles, the landscape would be different. I agree with you, Joe, that the problem might be that folks don’t find that kind of thing to be impressive anymore. But I’d also argue that Maguire was woefully miscast in Ride with the Devil. I didn’t think he was even the toughest guy in that movie.
This lack of “macho” stars can only be a good thing. It means that guys who lift weights and have no talent aren’t getting as many roles. It means that guys who can actually act are injecting a little bit extra into movies that ordinarily would have been a lot less worthwhile.
This is why we have superhero movies now: to split the difference. It used to be, in the ’80s and into the ’90s, that an “actor” could dedicate himself to being an action star (Arnold, Stallone, Norris, Seagal, Van Dam, etc.), and while he occasionally ventured into comedies or whatever, he didn’t move far from what he did best — also, he was of a physical type that nobody would believe in any other context. Ultimately they dated themselves — once they moved past a certain age their movies didn’t work anymore. Now, actors can do action movies and continue to work in other types of roles because in those action movies they get to play a “normal” person, and then for the action scenes they’re dressed up in a costume. Remember, Tobey Maguire wasn’t hired to play Spiderman, he was hired to play Peter Parker.
On a different note, men are very much the byproducts of what women want. If women today didn’t want their men dressed in tight jeans, Izods and fauxhawks they wouldn’t be wearing the fucking things.
I don’t really think it is as simple as Rambo vs Spider-Man. I don’t see it as an action issue.
Matt Damon kicks plenty of ass as Bourne and is still sensitive. Same with the even rougher hewn Daniel Craig Bond.
On the other hand… I think I might consider (and should have in the column) directors more than the actors. Remember… they made Henry Fonda into a hard man a few times. Peter Berg makes Jamie Foxx hard in a way that Rob Cohen could not. Same with Michael Mann turning Tom Cruise hard for a moment. (Save the jokes!)
Mann also made Val Kilmer tougher and took DeNiro where Scorsese never did… into a subtle way… still a killer, but seeking sensitivity. Ironically, as DeNiro got older, even Scorsese turned him soft and Jewish and then, he became the parody of the hard man he once was. Jackie Brown, Analyze This, and Bullwinkle have defined his career since. This is a great actor who needs his next great role… he needs a Soderbergh or a FF Coppola or a Ridley Scott to find a script in their hands about a very dangerous, very serious older man.
Oddly, I think the use of a dildo in The Departed may be remembered as the end of Nicholson as a sexual presence in the movies.
SO Heat does not like DeNiro dancing a Can-Can? Disappointing… but I do not rock my shirts the way you do Heat. Thus the difference and I am glad that it’s changed. We see heroism every freakin day and it’s rarely the big buff dudes leading away. It’s rather nice that POP-CULTURE has finally got the freakin hint. You could be the Commando, or you could be Peter Petrelli. I would rather be Peter Petrelli, but thats just me.
“Oddly, I think the use of a dildo in The Departed may be remembered as the end of Nicholson as a sexual presence in the movies.”
Arguably, the last thing Nicholson did on screen to get women wet was the “we saved LIVES” speech in “A Few Good Men” fifteen years ago. I’m not seeing much else in his movies since then that screams (much less whispers) “sexual presence”.
I definitely whole heartedly agree that masculinity is missing in many male leads these days, what with people like Jamie Foxx wearing Louis Voitton and such and I’d much rather get dirty with a man who doesn’t wax his chest within and inch of his life. Thankfully more men are turning away from that metrosexuality claptrap, too.
The most masculine action hero at the moment is Jack Bauer, actually.
I am reminded of that episode of South Park where all the men became metros as a secret plot by the crab people to eliminate masculinity and put their world domination plan into effect (via the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy men) and that Mr Garrison argued that by turning all the straight men metro the gays lost their only socially redeeming ability – to dress better than other men and be vein.
I think whoever posted this blog should get their facts straight. No, Gerard Butler’s body in 300 is not CG buddy. Everything in that movie is fake except for the people and their bodies. If you dont believe me you can go on many different sites and look at the men working out. It is very rude to say stuff if you have no idea what u r talking about and your probably just a 65 year old man who wishes he could get that buff for a movie. So next time you wish to post such a pointless blog, please get your facts straight and not bash on the actors who work so hard just because your jealous.
Gerard Butler’s abs are clearly accentuated by makeup.
C’mon. There’s no ebb of masculinity. And the sensitive, intelligent yet strong male isn’t a new phenomenon – they’re typically beloved, classic, timeless roles, whether played for romance or humor or gut-wrenching emotion. Tough to get scripts with these characters – tougher to find actors who can really pull it off. But the ones that do…
Think (somewhat chronologically) Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird & Roman Holiday, Jimmy Stewart in It’s a Wonderful Life, Cary Grant in Notorious, Spencer Tracy in something (can’t think of one, maybe BoysTown?), Sidney Poitier in To Sir With Love, James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause, Mel Gibson in A Year of Living Dangerously (maybe not as well known, but standout), Bruno Ganz in Wings of Desire, Timothy Hutton in Ordinary People, Dustin Hoffman in Kramer vs. Kramer (and Tootsie!), River Phoenix in probably everything, Harrison Ford in Witness and Working Girl, Jeff Bridges in The Fabulous Baker Boys, Kevin Costner in Bull Durham, Tom Hanks in Big, Robert DeNiro in Midnight Run, Michael Clarke Duncan in The Green Mile, Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, Morgan Freeman in Shawshank Redemption, Jack Nicholson in As Good As It Gets (or One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest), Ving Rhames in Dave (small role, but standout due to strong/heart), Cuba Gooding Jr and Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire, Djimon Hounsou (sp?) in Gladiator, James McAvoy in Rory O’Shea (not a well known flic, but he’s got the strong/sensitive thing down in this), Daniel Bruhl in Good Bye Lenin, Will Smith in Pursuit of Happyness, Ryan Gosling in Half Nelson. Seems other actors like Forest Whittaker, William H. Macy should be on it (The Cooler?) – but right now I’m blanking on good examples that stand out in their ouevre.
I’ll end with Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie…. “I was a better man with you as a woman, than I was with a woman as a man…”
These are off the top of my head, and I’ll think of more after I send this (and you will, too) but geez, we love those strong men with heart, or the tough ones that end up with heart by The End.
Point taken, Seen. In fact, I would argue that Djimon is a pretty perfect example of modern masculinity. And I always said that he should be Shaft, rather than Sam Jackson, because he exudes a sense of honor and fits the sexualized nature of that role. But he keeps being made the sidekick by Hollywood and having even that role cut down in post.
As I noted, Ving Rhames does great in the twist in Chuck & Larry because his is so macho.
And I have no problem with Michael Douglas being a true button down villain in Wall Street. Love Giamatti in Shoot ‘Em Up.
But where is the new Burt Lancaster/Gregory Peck/Brando/Bill Holden? Mel Gibson seems to have been the last vestige of them in his heyday and if he were acting, probably right now… that is, except for Will Smith. Russell Crowe has wanted to be this. Christian Bale is a bit dry for it. And now they are trying guys who just aren’t there… no?
i agree with nicol about future analysis of this era of film. there will be books.
i disagree on nick cage in “the departed.” i think he would have chewed the scenery. but then, i’m not a fan.
i think some of my problems with the influx of remakes is the lack of credible casting for the roles being cast. i can’t think of an under 40 actor that could pull off a mad max, a dekker, a bullitt.
Are there not books about _every_ era of film?
yes, and that’s what i’m saying. this is an era of film. not just a trend.
Well I think it has more to do with society at large and not what Nicol thinks, that ‘Hollywood’ is failing at something (any more than they usually do).
i don’t think i’d go so far as say “failing.” and i don’t think hollywood follows society. i think it tries to lead (which is where the bad movies come from).
that being said, our action heroes of late are butler (37), damon (36) & craig (39). where are the young guns? where’s the next generation?
emo boy as action hero will not hold for long. it’s good to vary it up, but sooner or later, the pendulum comes back to the middle. and there is no one on the horizon to fill that gap.
Dave –
Personal preference obviously comes in to play, but I agree, there aren’t many actors who can pull off strength, intelligence and the sort of heart/heartbreak that makes a role and even a line reading take on a life of its own through the ages. But I don’t think there ever have been that many. And not many scripts with that sort of resonance – and then to get the two together, even harder.
Right now I can only come up with the usual list of suspects. I agree Djimon Hounsou has it, and Daniel Craig. For my money, Clive Owen has it. Denzel. Will Smith. Gerard Butler. He may have played the required over the top role in 300, but he’s got range. Watch him in Dear Frankie, and then there was a British mini-series – The Jury, which is here on DVD. It’s an ensemble piece with a lot of story lines, but Butler plays a recovering alcoholic fresh out of rehab, who falls for a fellow jury member. (SPOILER ALERT) Of special note – the scene the morning after he’s gone on a bender and he’s sitting at a diner with his AA mentor.
I like Matt Damon as Bourne, and he seems to keep getting better. As for younger actors, I think we’re talking about roles that usually need the gravitas that comes with age, and new faces arrive daily. I’m impressed by actors like James Franco – seems like he could grow into it if he was so inclined.
Still, hard to believe Mel Gibson was shooting Mad Max at 22.
Hendhogan, some bad movies come from Hollywood trying to lead (Crash) but most come from Hollywood basely following (any cruddy action movie/thriller/etc.).
“emo boy as action hero will not hold for long.”
Shia LeBeouf (who I assume you are referring to) is not emo. Not at all.
I think he means Spider-Man, and I maintain that that scene was the highlight of #3.
actually, wasn’t referencing anyone in particular, more the current genre as i see it. i’m willing to hear other terms for it.
i see what you’re getting at, jeff. hollywood is risk adverse. it follows it’s own trends when they hit (ala sequels).
i was thinking that movies are made a year ahead of time (at least). can’t follow a trend a year ahead of time. so, one must attempt to create the trend. sometimes it resonates with the audience and we get copycats. other times, they fail and we never hear from the trend again.
the current trend is very japanese. young boy/girl enters a heretofore unknown world (be it giant robots or super powers). i just wouldn’t mind the occassional film about people used to that world and are good in that world.
How Hawksian of you.
well, not a woman, but otherwise ok.
Dave –
Here’s another way to put it. We may admire and even envy a character’s strength, but we love their vulnerability – when its believable. And not many actors can play believable vulnerability, (especially at an early age) and if we don’t really believe they’re in trouble, or that the ‘bottom’ they’ve hit is very deep, then we don’t care as much. We want movies more real these days, and the roles that resonate after decades had actors that could make us believe their sweat wasn’t sprayed on. You can see it in seconds – in the trailer of a movie.
You mention the leads of the top five movies, and I would contend that you’re less than inspired because the vulnerability wasn’t quite there. Gerard Butler’s role in 300 was written as over-the-top tough. He wasn’t supposed to be vulnerable, but as a result, it lacked depth and reality, but then it was a comic book. I cited his role in Jury Duty because his vulnerability was palpable – he can do it. You mention Christian Bale is dry – which I could equate with lacking believable vulnerability.
“Real machismo” as you put it, needs real vulnerability, or it comes off as one-dimensional and unbelievable. The two stars who ‘pushed your machismo button’ – Jason Bourne and Bruce Willis – could pull off some level of vulnerability. Tough guys are a dime a dozen, but when Marlon Brando chokes out ‘I coulda been a contender!’ – we’re there. That’s why Daniel Craig made Casino Royale work. The Departed was a great ride and well written and clever with plenty of macho men, etc, but I can’t say it pulled me into their world like a Raging Bull or Taxi Driver – maybe partly because the original, Infernal Affairs, had already done that for me. When critics talked about the choices Nicholson made for his role, I think it was about choosing camp machismo over a greater realism. I left the theater thinking I’d enjoyed a good Scorsese film and Nicholson was over-the-top Nicholson. But I didn’t feel shaken by corruption in the force, or in a man like Costello.
just read they are re-making “logan’s run.” who on earth are they going to get for a believable logan?