Actors and Actresses I don't like
Submitted by 1922 on Thu, 08/12/2004 - 02:42
Tags:
Actors and actresses I generally despise
- Ben Affleck
- Eddie Murphy
- Christopher Lambert
- Mel Gibson
Actors and actresses whose faces I never want to see again on the screen
- Cameron Diaz
- Jennifer Aniston
- Mike Myers
- Charlton Heston
- Will Ferrell
No talent at all/ The worst of all
- Russell Crowe
- John Travolta
- Martin Lawrence
- more to come
Interesting, I'd like to hear some reasoning for Travolta (who's hated so much he's on there twice) and Cameron Diaz.
Other than that, I can stand Murphy and Crowe (sometimes, usually just boring) but I would agree with you. I dispise Jennifer Aniston and Mel Gibson.
Well, why can't I stand Travolta?
The major reason is that he has never been really convincing (at least, in none of the movies I have seen).
But there are also a few other reasons:
- he is boring
- compared to really good actors (like Jack Nicholson or Al Pacino) he is nothing
- he is a member of Scientology (even though that has got nothing to do with his performances as an actor)
P.S.: That he is twice in the list has happened accidentally.
For Cameron Diaz:
- she seems to play always the same (or at least, very similar) characters (perhaps it's only me who thinks so)
- ONE positive thing about her: her performance in 'Being John Malkovich')
I think you make some good points here, but I'd argue with your comment about Cameron Diaz. I wouldn't disagree that she always plays the same character, but I don't see why that is a criticism. Tons of great actors make names for themselves playing the same type of character. Sure, there are some actors with tons of range (Meryl Streep, Dustin Hoffman, etc.), but are you going to criticize John Wayne for always playing the same character? He tended to play the solemn tough-guy quite often. How about adding Cary Grant here, who always played the suave, sophisticated, witty romantic lead? Or Jimmy Stewart, the likable, endearing optimist?
I mean, don't get me wrong. Those three guys are much better actors than Cameron Diaz. But I don't think one should criticize her (or anyone) for tending to play the same character.
I think one recognizes a good actor, if:
1. he is versatile. For instance: Sir Alec Guinness. He was by far the best actor of his generation, and why? Because of his versatility. He was able to play every role. Just compare his performances in 'The Bridge on the River Kwai', 'Lawrence of Arabia', 'Star Wars' or 'The Ladykillers'. You can't associate a single type of character to Alec Guinness, because he has played so many different people. And it's exactly that what makes him a better actor than Cary Grant, John Wayne or James Stewart (just to take your examples). (--> Do not misunderstand me now. Grant, Wayne and Stewart were surely great actors, too. ;-) )
2. he is convincing in his own type of character. Let's take James Stewart. Of course, you are right, when you say that he has always been the 'likable, endearing optimist'. But he has given a new definition to this type of character, and he has always (please note: ALWAYS) been convincing in this role. So, he was in his own way a great actor (if not one of the greatest ever). And there is the problem with Cameron Diaz. She is NOT convincing in her roles, because these roles are neither interesting nor very challenging (exception: Being John Malkovich). That's at least, what I think. If you like Cameron Diaz, I have got no problem with that. Maybe she'll surprise me in the next years, but I really have doubts about that.
I would still disagree with the versatility thing. Sir Alec Guinness is a fantastic actor, sure. Better than Grant, Wayne, and Stewart? Perhaps. But if he is, it doesn't have to do with his versatility, in my opinion. James Stewart found his niche in the acting world, and he consistently plays real human beings. Would you criticize John Ford for almost always directing Westerns or Alfred Hitchcock for almost always directing suspense movies? Or better yet, would you criticize Pablo Picasso for almost always painting that cubist art? Would you prefer to see Picasso branch out and do some impressionistic landscapes?
In my opinion, some people can make names for themselves by branching out and doing many different things, but other people can make names for themselves by being really great at doing one thing. Neither group is better than the other on principle.
Finally, I am confused as to why you think Cameron Diaz is an unconvincing actress because the roles she plays "are neither interesting nor very challenging." Those two seem like completely different things to me. Could you explain what you meant by that?
I think that versatility still remains (at least, for an artist) the best proof of (multiple) talent. It's an elementary part of arts. If one is able to do the same thing again and again without getting boring, well,that's fine then. That's the case for Alfred Hitchcock, for instance. He often made thrillers, but they were never tiring. He always had new inspiring ideas for his films.
The same for James Stewart: he was never boring in his roles, even though they were often similar.
For Cameron Diaz: by 'interesting' I mean interesting for the spectator and by 'challenging' I mean challenging for herself (if her roles are a challenge for herself).
I'm sorry, I think my last post was a bit unclear. I just meant to ask why you think she is an "unconvincing" actress based on those things. If you say her characters aren't interesting for the spectator to watch, would that make her an unconvincing actress? I don't think every *real* person is interesting. I think if a character is not interesting, that would be partially the fault of the screenwriter, though Diaz is also at fault for choosing that role.
And if she's choosing unchallenging roles, then that probably means she's familiar with the character enough to play it pretty well, right? That wouldn't make her an unconvincing actress. Perhaps an actress unwilling to explore unfamiliar tasks, but not an unconvincing one. It would seem to me that an actress who makes you think that the roles she plays are not challenging is actually doing a pretty good job of conveying a real person, even if the real person is very close to her own personality.
Sorry if this discussion is being reduced to quibbling. What I'm really trying to say is that I think Cameron Diaz has found her niche. She has a certain character type and plays it convincingly and appealingly, in my opinion. She may not be constantly challenging herself, and she certainly doesn't have anywhere near as many talents as Alec Guinness (and who does?), but I do enjoy watching her.
Cameron Diaz, a defense: She's a sssssmokin'!
Actresses have a short shelf-life in Hollywood. If you've got the tools that Diaz does (face, body, legs, etc.) you have to use them before they're gone and get your paydays early because football players will have longer careers. This narrows the range of roles you can fill in an industry where there aren't that many roles for women, let alone good ones. Even if you make it past the hurdle of 40 your per picture price is going to plumet. Is there a single actress who is able to knock down $10 million a movie who's in her forties (or older)? I can't think of one but I can rattle off at least a dozen actors without breaking a sweat.
Meryl Streep, to use an example from above, was in her twenties in the 70s. She starred opposite Woody Allen, Dustin Hoffman and Alan Alda among others. That was over a quarter century ago. Now she's playing repressed authors, ice-lady Senators and bizarre aunts. No love interests. She's only fifty-five, the finest actor of her generation and gorgeous. Alan Alda, when he was 62, had a screen wife of 38. That's Object of My Affection and Allison Janney. Dustin Hoffman, at 66, was able to come on to someone who was 32. Confidence with Rachel Weisz. Woody Allen, when he was 67, was able to have an ex-wife who was 36, a girlfriend of 34 and is propositioned by a 28 year-old. That's Hollywood Ending with Tea Leoni, Debra Messing and Tiffani Thiessen. Keep in mind the fact that all of these women are hotties and nobody thinks that the men are ridiculously miscast in their roles.
When people find out that it is Cameron Diaz who plays the wife in Being John Malkovich they are invariably amazed to the point of insult. "I can't blieve that she would/could do that!" is a typical response. As if playing a (physically) unattractive person is a bad career move for an actress... and it is. So I'll be very interested to see what Cameron Diaz is doing in a decade or so. Until then I'll think that she's an excellent actress.
That's of course an argument, but I don't think that makes a good actress of her.
P.S.: Concerning the actresses in their forties (or older):
I have read that Barbra Streisand earns more than 10'000'000 US-$/film, and she is 62! But she's an exception. There, you are surely right.
I didn't mean to claim that any of Diaz' roles certify her as a good actress. I don't think that she has really been asked to act (much) in anything besides Being John Malkovich . I meant to say that when she's called upon to act she throws down in a huge way. It's as if The Ahnuld could deliver an Oscar-worthy performance in the lead role of King Lear ... okay, it's nothing like that but you see what I'm driving at. I'll put it this way: Cameron Diaz and Charlize Theron have had the same career with only an Oscar seperating them.
I'm glad you reminded me of Streisand. Before she hit 40 she averaged a movie a year. Since hitting forty she has done four movies in twenty-two years... and she was the producer in all of them. I'd love to know what she's getting for Meet the Fockers ... and I'm terrified by the possibility that Drew Barrymore might also be a $10 million dollar floozie.
I think my head is going to explode.
I just watched Charlie Rose (of The Charlie Rose Show) interview Harrison Ford who was flogging Firewall. Leaving aside my problems with the self-proclaimed self-effacing Mr. Rose they discussed the casting of Virginia Madsen as a bold age-appropriate decision. He's got more than two decades on her. What!? Wasn't Denise Richards available?
kaplow!
I'd prefer Virginia Madsen to Denise Richards every day...
Charlize Theron is Harvard's Hasty Pudding Woman of the Year. This gave Boston-area writer Sam Allis an opportunity to interview the "tall creature from some distant savannah." But more on that later.
Since our last meeting Cameron Diaz has made In Her Shoes, The Holiday and Shrek the Third. Not all that shabby. However she is signed up for Shrek the Fourth, a horror movie and an Ashton Kutcher movie which is an entirely different kind of horror. I also see Shrek Takes the Fifth and Shrek's the Sixth Sick Sheikh's Sixth Sheep is Sick in our future.
Charlize Theron has made North Country, Æon Flux, In the Valley of Elah, Battle in Seattle and Sleepwalking as well as a handful of Arrestd Developments and a Robot Chicken. Even less shabby. She is signed up for a Will Smith superhero movie, a sci-fi thriller, a chick flic and another Job movie. I'm still looking forward what she'll be doing in a decade eight years. I'm terrified that it will include The Burkina Fasso Job.
After a half-dozen paragraphs about her physical appearance Mr. Allis lets Ms. Theron address the topic:
Then came her role as Josey in "North Country," another unglamorous part, this time a miner. She took a year off to grow her hair back to its natural brown [emphasis added] for "In the Valley of Elah," another unglamorous role as a detective who's a single mother.
"I got really defensive of Josey," she adds. "I love this character. But I've always said I'd play a pretty girl in every single movie if it was a good story. It's not about the physical. I couldn't give a [expletive] about what I look like.
[snip]
She chafes at the bipolar Hollywood attitude about women. "If we're going to tell stories about women, we should do it truthfully," she says. "We can't keep living this madonna-whore complex. I think women are way more conflicted than men and yet somehow we only portray men that way.
"I look at a role like Aileen Wuornos in 'Monster' that De Niro would have gotten," she continues. "There's this idea that it's high risk to put a woman in a role like that because people aren't going to watch a woman."But people will watch (and pay) a woman in her early twenties if she spends the majority of her time on screen topless. If people want to watch Monster, Sleepwalking and The Burning Plain she will have to produce them herself.
For a mediocre interview it's a pretty good interview... and I never knew that was how you pronounce "Theron."
Of course you are right, and by Athena this is a good post! So I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm merely trying to find the exceptions that prove the rule. I don't really know what salaries these women commanded, but here goes...
Ummm.
Hmm.
Ah! Sigourney Weaver might have scored >$10M for Alien: Resurrection.
Frances McDormand still gets good roles (as well she should), but I'm not sure what kind of salary she commands. Probably not $10M. Same with Julianne Moore (who I like less than the other two mentioned so far).
Finally, Judi Dench might not make $10M, but she probably has the highest hourly rate of anybody, actor or actress, as she's the queen of the nigh cameo performance.
I've pulled back out into the left lane to avoid the brilliant traffic jam that has developed to the right. Read what is above and before this post so you don't think I came up with this stuff out of thin (or thick) air.
oof! This just goes to show ya that the mental position that "actress" occupies in the mind has nothing to do with the real world occupation. To put it another way: How could I have forgotten about Julia "$25M+" Roberts?
$20M+: Cameron Diaz; $15M: Reese Witherspoon, Nicole Kidman, Sandra Bullock, Halle Berry, Meg Ryan, Jennifer Lopez, Sigourney Weaver and maybe Renée Zelwegger; $12-15M: Angelina Jolie, Jodie Foster and Michelle Pfeiffer; $14M: Catherine Zeta-Jones; $10-14M: Drew Barrymore; $12M: Gwyneth Paltrow
These figures/guesses are a year old, include actors with asking prices of $1M+ and are seperated into Young- (13-30), Pure- (31-49) and Old- (50+) Hollywood. The ratio of femal/male actors in the categories goes 18/9 to 31/41 and then 4/13 (not a single actress over fifty has a $10M+ asking price.)
By-the-by: Meryl Streep comes in at $7-9M and Julianne Moore kicks it for $3M (but her new film Savage Grace has a total budget of $10M.)
That's still an embarassing collection (and amount) of actresses to slip my mind.
What I really want to know is: Can you be a great actor without necessarily taking on demanding and different roles? I know you've already answered this, and I agree with you, but I wanted to pose a theoretical to you: What if Sir Laurence Olivier had only performed "Jimmy Stewart Type" roles for all of his career? Or "Cary Grant Type" roles, "Errol Flynn Type" and so on. I think he could've done this and been great at it. I think there's very little he couldn't have done. But would he still be a great actor?
I'm still trying to clarify and purify my opinion on this but it does raise the frightening image of Dustin Hoffman being tied to a dentist chair and asked "Is it, is it, is it... gosh, you know, is it safe? Out there, I mean."
You missed Sigourney Weaver, who is over 50 and, according to the site you linked to, gets about $15 million per picture. Good guess, Jim! Still, she's definitely the exception to the rule.
But wow, Samuel L. Jackson is 54? Never woulda guessed! And Marky Mark gets $10 million a picture? Really? And that girl from that Godawful movie "The Glass House" gets $3 million? Ugh!
Thanks for the link!
whoops, I was cutting and pasting and bobbing and weaving and ducking and moving pretty fast there. I even lost sight of the fact that I should've been talking only about actresses over forty (which does not include Julia Roberts) but the age ranges and the caliber of actresses probably strengthen my argument while depressing me to pieces. Drew Barrymore?! "Ugh!" indeed.
Time marches on...
While the new Top 10 has a couple of actresses pushing forty there is only one actress pulling forty... and I have a tough time believing that Jodie Foster is pulling down $12 million per movie.
The majority of the top earners were born after the release of The Godfather . Keep that in mind if any of them star opposite Al Pacino or James Caan or... I guess, Abe Vigoda.
It appears to me that getting pregnant hurts an actress's career while dating Brad Pitt helps... so try to combine the two if you must. The actresses may be young but most of their lips appear much younger... along with several chins and a couple noses.
1. Julia Roberts -- $20 million
2. Nicole Kidman -- $16 million-$17 million
3. Reese Witherspoon -- $15 million
4. Drew Barrymore -- $15 million
5. Renee Zellweger -- $10 million-$15 million
6. Angelina Jolie -- $10 million-$15 million
7. Cameron Diaz -- $10 million-$15 million
8. Jodie Foster -- $10 million-$12 million
9. Charlize Theron -- $10 million
10. Jennifer Aniston -- $9 million
Justice demands that I fix up Brad Pitt and Meryl Streep.
Thanks for the excellent post, and sorry for answering so late.
It's still impossible to beat Julia.
Oh, and Witherspoon, Diaz and Aniston would get no cent from me. But $20 million is pretty much for one person. That's more than other people earn during their entire life.
Hmm, this list needs to be updated...
And it may interest you that I have changed my opinion about Cameron Diaz a little bit. I still can't stand her, but in Gangs of New York, she was not bad. But then again, Scorsese could make a rotten egg act in an Oscar-worthy performance.
Of course, he would still have been a great actor. Jimmy Stewart was great, too, even though he (nearly) always played the same genre of characters.