3 ms·

I know I'm going to collect a lot of hate for what I'm going to say, especially considering English is not my main language... Anyways, here I go: I fear he was

I know I'm going to collect a lot of hate for what I'm going to say, especially considering English is not my main language... Anyways, here I go: I fear he was one of those actors that played always the same role, movie after movie. I'm not saying he wasn't s good actor, I just mean I couldn't appreciate his versatility, let's say. He always played Ray Liotta, to me. And if you don't already hate me enough, hear me out, I think the same about De Niro....

peanut_worm 4y ago
I feel like thats the case with most “Gangster” actors. I agree about De Niro.
- bitexploder 4y ago
  De Niro broke out here and there. Cape Fear was a well performed movie from him, for example.
nickff 4y ago
This is often not a deliberate choice by the actor, and can be the result of typecasting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typecasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typecasting
- pachico 4y ago
  Thank you, I wasn't aware of the concept. Sure, I'm not saying it's what the artist wants, I'm saying I can only appreciate one side of his (potential) skills.
  - nescioquid 4y ago
    The explanations I've seen reduce this phenomenon to financial incentives. A movie studio is going to spend a lot of money on making a movie, and know that star X will ensure some level of box-office returns. In turn, lead actors have a "brand" and if they were to actually take on new personas for every role the "brand" would be diluted and the lead would not command quite so much money. FWIW, I agree with you aesthetically.
    - jfengel 4y ago
      It applies to non-leads as well, and it's not just money. When they know a certain actor can pull off a certain "type" in a way that the audience connects with, they'll cast that actor for that over and over. The actors themselves might prefer to show more range, but they give the directors what they ask for, and the director can worry about a million other things. There are a few actors whose brand is versatility -- Daniel Day Lewis, Meryl Streep, Johnny Depp, etc. -- and audiences go precisely to watch them be different. As an actor I have mixed emotions about that. The performances are sometimes more showy than good, to my understanding of "good". But if audiences connect with it, and directors want it, that's the only metric that matters.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > often not a deliberate choice by the actor Especially if they can't act more than one character
duped 4y ago
He was certainly typecast > I think the same about De Niro Watch Taxi Driver, Silver Linings Playbook, and Stardust. For a meta-take on that, watch Meet the Parents.
- pachico 4y ago
  I did! Doesn't he always play the tough guy even when he shows some vulnerability? Am I reading it wrong? I would never say this about Hoffman or even about people like Farrell, or Sam Rockwell... Somehow I always see De Niro playing De Niro playing something (not a typo, I mean it this way).
i13e 4y ago
I see where you're coming from (r.e. De Niro) but mostly disagree. Personally, I think my favorite examples of his acting repertoire are Godfather II, GoodFellas, Taxi Driver, and Joker (I honestly didn't even realize it was him as Murray till the credits rolled). Regardless though, R.I.P. Ray Liotta.
scyzoryk_xyz 4y ago
Nobody hates you - what you're describing could be called a "character actor". It's very common and a perfectly normal thing in show-business. People in the film/entertainment industry, especially actors have very thick skins when it comes to this kind of stuff. From my experiences working with actors on sets, the fact that someone is a character actor doesn't mean anything less, it's still work and it still requires acting. People who comment on performances often have no idea that most of the work is quite tedious and mechanical. Sometimes someone being a good actor means they're easy to work with and professional. Most of the time film editing changes the actual performance anyways, so what you see on the screen is often a totally different matter. Also reputations of actors like Robert De Niro are manufactured and are part of the 'product' or 'brand'. You aren't a fan of the brand, that's fine, those people know what they're doing and they know who is their fanbase.
- santoshalper 4y ago
  I do think being a leading actor is more prestigious than being a character actor and requires more impressive skills, but character actors are critical too and often undervalued. I always loved seeing Ray Liotta show up in a movie. Yes, he was a bit "one-note", but I really liked that note!
  - dokem 4y ago
    You can be a leading character actor. Like Ray in Goodfellas, or Arnold Schwartzanyeaggear in all his movies.
- cafard 4y ago
  I had always understood "character actor" in the opposite sense, i.e. one who played the character and not himself. But yes, a lot of actors make a career playing the same character over and over.

peanut_worm 4y ago

I feel like thats the case with most “Gangster” actors. I agree about De Niro.

bitexploder 4y ago
De Niro broke out here and there. Cape Fear was a well performed movie from him, for example.

nickff 4y ago

This is often not a deliberate choice by the actor, and can be the result of typecasting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typecasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typecasting

pachico 4y ago
Thank you, I wasn't aware of the concept. Sure, I'm not saying it's what the artist wants, I'm saying I can only appreciate one side of his (potential) skills.
- nescioquid 4y ago
  The explanations I've seen reduce this phenomenon to financial incentives. A movie studio is going to spend a lot of money on making a movie, and know that star X will ensure some level of box-office returns. In turn, lead actors have a "brand" and if they were to actually take on new personas for every role the "brand" would be diluted and the lead would not command quite so much money. FWIW, I agree with you aesthetically.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    It applies to non-leads as well, and it's not just money. When they know a certain actor can pull off a certain "type" in a way that the audience connects with, they'll cast that actor for that over and over. The actors themselves might prefer to show more range, but they give the directors what they ask for, and the director can worry about a million other things. There are a few actors whose brand is versatility -- Daniel Day Lewis, Meryl Streep, Johnny Depp, etc. -- and audiences go precisely to watch them be different. As an actor I have mixed emotions about that. The performances are sometimes more showy than good, to my understanding of "good". But if audiences connect with it, and directors want it, that's the only metric that matters.
ekianjo 4y ago
> often not a deliberate choice by the actor Especially if they can't act more than one character

duped 4y ago

He was certainly typecast > I think the same about De Niro Watch Taxi Driver, Silver Linings Playbook, and Stardust. For a meta-take on that, watch Meet the Parents.

pachico 4y ago
I did! Doesn't he always play the tough guy even when he shows some vulnerability? Am I reading it wrong? I would never say this about Hoffman or even about people like Farrell, or Sam Rockwell... Somehow I always see De Niro playing De Niro playing something (not a typo, I mean it this way).

i13e 4y ago

I see where you're coming from (r.e. De Niro) but mostly disagree. Personally, I think my favorite examples of his acting repertoire are Godfather II, GoodFellas, Taxi Driver, and Joker (I honestly didn't even realize it was him as Murray till the credits rolled). Regardless though, R.I.P. Ray Liotta.

scyzoryk_xyz 4y ago

Nobody hates you - what you're describing could be called a "character actor". It's very common and a perfectly normal thing in show-business. People in the film/entertainment industry, especially actors have very thick skins when it comes to this kind of stuff. From my experiences working with actors on sets, the fact that someone is a character actor doesn't mean anything less, it's still work and it still requires acting. People who comment on performances often have no idea that most of the work is quite tedious and mechanical. Sometimes someone being a good actor means they're easy to work with and professional. Most of the time film editing changes the actual performance anyways, so what you see on the screen is often a totally different matter. Also reputations of actors like Robert De Niro are manufactured and are part of the 'product' or 'brand'. You aren't a fan of the brand, that's fine, those people know what they're doing and they know who is their fanbase.

santoshalper 4y ago
I do think being a leading actor is more prestigious than being a character actor and requires more impressive skills, but character actors are critical too and often undervalued. I always loved seeing Ray Liotta show up in a movie. Yes, he was a bit "one-note", but I really liked that note!
- dokem 4y ago
  You can be a leading character actor. Like Ray in Goodfellas, or Arnold Schwartzanyeaggear in all his movies.
cafard 4y ago
I had always understood "character actor" in the opposite sense, i.e. one who played the character and not himself. But yes, a lot of actors make a career playing the same character over and over.