Which modern day young actor could play the great roles of the past?

dark crystal

I was just browsing through a history of the Oscars there and noticed the caliber of great actors nominated for great roles during the 70's - Jack Nicholson, Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino, Gene Hackman etc., nominated for iconic roles in films like Taxi Driver, The Godfather (1&2), The French Connection, Serpico, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Dog Day Afternoon, The Conversation, The Last Detail, Chinatown.....the list goes on.

It got me thinking, I can't think of any current young actors in their mid-20's to mid-30's who have enough gravitas to play a Michael Corleone, an R.P McMurphy or a Travis Bickle.

Most young actors these days don't get offered anything more challenging than donning a superhero costume, fighting in CGI and raking in the millions, or blowing sh!t up, shooting terrorists, robots or aliens and raking in the millions, or starring in endless remakes and franchises and, yes, raking in the millions.

Are todays young actors really given the chance to act any more? There could be a case to be made for actors like Leonardo DiCaprio, Ryan Gosling and Casey Affleck, who generally like to take on interesting and challenging roles, but they do seem to be a rarity these days.

Can anyone think of a young actor today who could be considered a modern day Deniro, Pacino or Nicholson?

Mickeroo

Not being funny but I think you answered your own question in the OP. The actors you mentioned are well up to the task. I also think its a bit of a fallacy to say that actors are being wasted on the kind of stuff you mentioned these days. Some of those types of movies have been brilliant and also there's plenty of great movies doing the rounds outside of the block buster scene. The caliber only seems higher in the past because only the really good stuff gets remembered. In 20 years time there'll be folks starting threads about how the actors aren't as good as they were now.

Along with the actors you mentioned i would add Tom Hardy, Christian Bale, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Matt Damon(when he wants to), Ben Affleck (more for his directing than acting in fairness but he was good in The Town and Argo looks great), Jeremy Renner, Aaron Johnson.... I'm sure there's some I've forgotten. If you go a bit of older you have likes of George Clooney and Brad Pitt. Thats not to menton all the great actresses and foreign actors and actresses around too.

dark crystal

I'm not convinced that any of the actors you mentioned could play a Michael Corleone or an R.P McMurphy, though. Many of them are talented for sure, but I don't get a sense that many of them have that 'iconic' status about them.
Tom Hardy was great in Bronson, Matt Damon was great in The Talented Mr. Ripley and Christian Bale was great in American Psycho, but the others wouldn't necessarily rate as particularly memorable talents to me, personally.

Also, the whole superhero genre is just pure popcorn entertainment in my opinion - not a basis for showcasing acting talent as such. I mean, the actors starring in those pictures may win any number of MTV awards, but Oscar worthy?.... No (Heath Ledger aside, obviously). Not a popular opinion I'm sure, but just my view on it!

I'm sure much of the reason has to do with big studio pictures today being based more around spectacle and box office receipts than the quality of writing and acting in most cases, but it does seem to me that if a young actor wishes to actually make a film with any originality, they'll most probably have to go the independent route.

I really think that Zach Efron could compete pretty well with the likes of Fred Astaire, Clark Gable and other actors of that ilk. Yes, he started off in those terrible Highschool Musical movies, but he proved his singing and dancing ability and the likes of Me and Oscar Welles and Water for Elephants proved that he has a great acting ability as well.

juan.kerr

Steven Seagal

dark crystal

juan.kerr wrote: »

Steven Seagal

Definitely....I thought his performance in 'Out For Justice' rivalled anything Brando ever did.

juan.kerr

dark crystal wrote: »

Definitely....I thought his performance in 'Out For Justice' rivalled anything Brando ever did.

Indeed. He could have been a contender.

dark crystal

juan.kerr wrote: »

Indeed. He could have been a contender.

But unfortunately he became a buddhist instead

juan.kerr

dark crystal wrote: »

But unfortunately he became a buddhist instead

And a deputy sheriff.

blue note

In fairness, an extraordinary number of genuinely great actors seemed to come on the scene in the period mentioned. I don't think you can expect it in every ten year period. I wouldn't put mickeroos list in the same category as the ops, or ever expect to. However, there are a couple around now. Michael fassbender springs to mind - I expect he'll have a career as great as those mentioned. And Christian bale is very good, even if equally dislikeable.

kitakyushu

Tommy Wiseau anyone?

"I did not hit her, it's not true! It's bullshít! I did not hit her! I did naaaaaht. Oh hai, Senator Geary! "

JP Liz V1

I would consider Joaquin Phoenix one of the greatest actors of his generation

Also James Franco is very good given the right role

dark crystal

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I would consider Joaquin Phoenix one of the greatest actors of his generation

Also James Franco is very good given the right role

Two good choices there alright. I agree Franco could be great given the right roles - I could see him playing a Travis Bickle type character for instance. He has the intensity and talent to do it. I thought he was very good in James Dean and 127 hours. Not sure he picks the best roles to showcase that talent a lot of the time, though.

Phoenix is what I'd call an interesting character actor. Brooding, eccentric and very talented (he should have won Oscars for Gladiator and Walk The Line imo). Shame he seems to be doing relatively little with that talent these days, though.

dark crystal

dark crystal wrote: »

Phoenix is what I'd call an interesting character actor. Brooding, eccentric and very talented (he should have won Oscars for Gladiator and Walk The Line imo). Shame he seems to be doing relatively little with that talent these days, though.

The same can be said for Daniel Day Lewis. I would have more respect for actors who choose excellent roles every few years rather than being completely oversaturated with mediocre ones.

Da Shins Kelly

Yep. Joaquin Phoenix is definitely up there. He's far better than most of his contemporaries.

dark crystal

Deleted User wrote: »

The same can be said for Daniel Day Lewis. I would have more respect for actors who choose excellent roles every few years rather than being completely oversaturated with mediocre ones.

Very true. You know when Daniel Day Lewis agrees to a role it's going to be special. Pure quality.

Da Shins Kelly

Deleted User wrote: »

The same can be said for Daniel Day Lewis. I would have more respect for actors who choose excellent roles every few years rather than being completely oversaturated with mediocre ones.

True. It's difficult to respect someone who wastes their talent by doing any old sh*t.

JP Liz V1

Mickeroo wrote: »

Along with the actors you mentioned i would add Tom Hardy, Christian Bale, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Matt Damon(when he wants to), Ben Affleck (more for his directing than acting in fairness but he was good in The Town and Argo looks great), Jeremy Renner, Aaron Johnson.... I'm sure there's some I've forgotten. If you go a bit of older you have likes of George Clooney and Brad Pitt. Thats not to menton all the great actresses and foreign actors and actresses around too.

I worry about Renner and Levitt now as they seem to be picking too many bigger roles especially Renner

Levitt was kinda an indie darling

Mickeroo

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I worry about Renner and Levitt now as they seem to be picking too many bigger roles especially Renner

Levitt was kinda an indie darling

Renner is starting to become a bit type cast with action roles alright, hopefully he can still fit a few more serious roles in around the mission:impossible's and bourne movies.

I'm not worried about Levitt at all, sure he's getting big roles now, but look at the quality of the films he's been in the last 2 years: 50/50, Inception, TDKR & Looper....if he can keep quality like that up there's nothing to worry about. Either way though, rather than indie darling, he'll always be the kid from Third Rock From the Sun to me :P

johnny_ultimate

Michael Shannon in Take Shelter is single-handedly proof that thirty something actors these days can be every bit as capable and screen dominating as their predecessors.

But the question is somewhat absurd. There are plenty of performances these days I couldn't imagine De Niro, Pacino or Nicholson performing well, even in their respective heydays. I don't think any of them could pull off the manic intensity of Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood, or the emotional and physical commitment Fassbender brings to Hunger.

dark crystal

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

But the question is somewhat absurd. There are plenty of performances these days I couldn't imagine De Niro, Pacino or Nicholson performing well, even in their respective heydays. I don't think any of them could pull off the manic intensity of Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood, or the emotional and physical commitment Fassbender brings to Hunger.

I disagree completely. DeNiro, Pacino and Nicholson, in particular, have played manic intensity brilliantly in the past. Some of their most iconic roles have been based on very intense characters!

It's just not true to say they wouldn't be able to pull off such characters, imo.

Da Shins Kelly

dark crystal wrote: »

I disagree completely. DeNiro, Pacino and Nicholson, in particular, have played manic intensity brilliantly in the past. Some of their most iconic roles have been based on very intense characters!

It's just not true to say they wouldn't be able to pull off such characters, imo.

This may be controversial, and I do like him most of the time, but sometimes I feel like Nicholson is a little bit overrated. Sometimes he seems to just play exaggerated versions of himself...

With regard to intense characters, sure DeNiro's character in Taxi Driver is pretty intense, and in Raging Bull, and Pacino's portrayal of Michael Corleone is intense at times. That said, I couldn't see any of them playing Daniel Plainview or Gerry Conlon or Christy Brown as well as Daniel Day-Lewis did. The same way I couldn't see anyone else playing Michael Corleone, I couldn't see anyone else playing those characters. I could, however, imagine Daniel Day-Lewis in the Travis Bickle role, for some reason. I feel like that's the kind of role he would have excelled in had he been around at that time.

With regards to Bobby Sands, I find it difficult to imagine any non-Irish person in that role, to be honest (although Daniel Day-Lewis played Gerry Conlon and he's not technically Irish).

johnny_ultimate

dark crystal wrote: »

I disagree completely. DeNiro, Pacino and Nicholson, in particular, have played manic intensity brilliantly in the past. Some of their most iconic roles have been based on very intense characters!

It's just not true to say they wouldn't be able to pull off such characters, imo.

I'm not crapping on their abilities (although De Niro and Pacino especially often just riff on a few general types: very good types, that's true) I'm just saying I don't think their style of acting would be suitable for several of the best contemporary performances. I'd also often believe the reverse is true, by the way. I could name countless other examples, but I think every great actor has a handful of roles where the script, director etc... all comes together to encourage truly great performances. De Niro had that with Scorcese, Day Lewis had it with Anderson. Gene Kelly was perfect in Singin' in the Rain, but there's few roles these days he'd suit. Similarly, no-one around at the moment who I think could pull off Singin' in the Rain. It just happens, and is not a criticism of actors old or new. Even inconsistent actors like Jim Carrey have found that perfect combination (with Eternal Sunshine or Truman Show, and I've never seen De Niro, Nicholson or Pacino pull off an unshowy role of such awkward shyness as the former) and allowed their specific style and skills to create something very special.

Can't leave women out of the equation, either: Anna Paquin in The Piano or Margaret, Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit, Jennifer Lawerence in Winter's Bone, Michelle Williams / Natalie Portman in a lot of things... All these young actresses and others have achieved great things recently. And TBH, if I had to in some bizarre hypothetical situation, Irene Jacob's performance in Double Life of Veronique when she was in her mid-twenties would rank higher than anything De Niro, Pacino or Nicholson have ever managed. Her roles was mesmerising and dominating in a way I haven't experienced with even The Godfather or Taxi Driver.

If you want a genuinely great contemporary performance, by the way, Denis Lavant in Holy Motors is truly remarkable. Again, outside your suggested age range, but **** me he's good.

dark crystal

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Can't leave women out of the equation, either: Anna Paquin in The Piano or Margaret, Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit, Jennifer Lawerence in Winter's Bone, Michelle Williams / Natalie Portman in a lot of things... All these young actresses and others have achieved great things recently. And TBH, if I had to in some bizarre hypothetical situation, Irene Jacob's performance in Double Life of Veronique when she was in her mid-twenties would rank higher than anything De Niro, Pacino or Nicholson have ever managed. Her roles was mesmerising and dominating in a way I haven't experienced with even The Godfather or Taxi Driver.

Actually, on this point, my opening post referred to male actors really because I believe there to be a real void in good dramatic roles for men in the big studio pictures these days (hence the reason I don't see many successors to the great actors of the past). However, I find the opposite to be true for actresses.

The actresses you mention are all superb. Add to those actresses such as Jessica Chastain, Hilary Swank, Kate Winslet, Elizabeth Olsen, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Emma Stone and I think any of them could equal great actresses of the last 30 years such as Meryl Streep, Faye Dunaway, Sally Field, Sissy Spacek or Diane Keaton.

If you want a genuinely great contemporary performance, by the way, Denis Lavant in Holy Motors is truly remarkable. Again, outside your suggested age range, but **** me he's good.

Haven't seen that one but have heard great things alright. Again though, we're having to look towards independent cinema in order to find good roles for male actors.

Sam Rockwell is another extraordinary actor who I think could rival the great actors of the 70's if only he could get the right parts.

don ramo

actors dont have to live up to playing them roles, cause other actors have already played them, its not ryan goslings fault that pacino already played michael corleone

actors today can only play the roles that are available for them to play, and if in 20 years time people still enjoy that film and their performances then well enough, they done their job,

its rather unfair to judge an 22 year old actor with maybe 8 films under his belt to an actor like jack nicholson who has been given the grace of a 6 decade career to build such a solid reputation,

Sleepy

I have to say, I could see Gosling pulling off Michael Corleone were anyone insane enough to re-make The Godfather Part I. You be hard pushed to look much further than De Niro to reprise the role of Vito were you doing this (and it'd be interesting to contrast his old Vito with Brando's) but again, I could see Joaquin Phoenix doing well with some of Brando's earlier roles.

Mickeroo

As much as I love Pacine, DeNiro and Nicholson I've never considered them particularly versatile. I'm not saying they can't do different kinds of roles/movies but even when they do they still seem like they're playing different variations of themselves to an extent.

niallon

In reference to the thread title of which modern day young actor could play the great roles of the past, one that sticks out over most I think is Tom Hardy.

It doesn't hurt that in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy we can see him decked out in retro style and that but putting aside that he's been a bleeding tank in most of his big roles, he carries a class and presence in his roles that I think would make him slot in perfectly into the mold that movies were made back in the seventies especially. He'd be a perfect McMurphy or Jake LaMotta and most especially, I reckon he would've been a great young Vito...... Though De Niros talent and heritage make him the indisputable ideal actor always for that role.

sumsar

There are plenty of modern day actors mentioned in this thread that could play great roles from the past, the problem is there are just so many mediocre actors that are famous these days because of teenage girls, in the long run the great actors like Levitt, Dicaprio, Gosling and Day Lewis etc etc will be the ones who will be most memorable.

pickarooney

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Can't leave women out of the equation, either: Anna Paquin in The Piano or Margaret, Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit, Jennifer Lawerence in Winter's Bone, Michelle Williams / Natalie Portman in a lot of things... All these young actresses and others have achieved great things recently.

After five years of excruciatingly bad performances in True Blood I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion

Liam O

There are far more movies these days than there was back then too. There are a lot of movies and indeed actors around today that if they were around in the 70s would be seen as classics.

I'd argue that Leo has already far surpassed the sum of what those actors had achieved by his age too.

johnny_ultimate

pickarooney wrote: »

After five years of excruciatingly bad performances in True Blood I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion

Have you seen Margaret? Astonishing performance. True Blood isn't exactly AAA material... hardly like De Niro or Pacino have given performances to write home about in the last decade or so either!

Da Shins Kelly

Liam O wrote: »

There are far more movies these days than there was back then too. There are a lot of movies and indeed actors around today that if they were around in the 70s would be seen as classics.

I'd argue that Leo has already far surpassed the sum of what those actors had achieved by his age too.

Gonna stick my neck out now and say DiCaprio is overrated.

fruvai

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Gonna stick my neck out now and say DiCaprio is overrated.

+1
He's a good actor but he's not in the same league as De Niro,Day-Lewis etc.

Mickeroo

I think DiCaprio is brilliant, right up there with the greats, but he falls into the same trap as DeNiro, Pacino and Nicholson in the he's not particularly versatile. His role in What's Eating Gilbert Grape would suggest it's more down to choice of roles rather than ability though.

Da Shins Kelly

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think DiCaprio is brilliant, right up there with the greats, but he falls into the same trap as DeNiro, Pacino and Nicholson in the he's not particularly versatile. His role in What's Eating Gilbert Grape would suggest it's more down to choice of roles rather than ability though.

He doesn't really convince me.

kitakyushu

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

He doesn't really convince me.

Great actor. Always remembers his lines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Pbx9mvWPY