posted
Does Mr. Card like (or do you like if you happen to read this) Johnny Depp? In the Finding Neverland it is mentioned what a great actor he is. "Johnny Depp achieves perfection in his low-key portrayal of Barrie. When I imagine Robin Williams or Jim Carrey trying to play such a role I cringe -- this is why Depp is a great actor and neither Williams nor Carrey even begins to approach greatness. Depp, you see, knows when to shut up and hold still, when to conceal his own artistry and thereby reveal the story." In the Wonka review it reads, "In best Johnny Depp fashion, the performance is mannered beyond any hope of resembling an actual human being". I read this to mean Depp does this in a lot of his movies.
This also brings up a good question in my mind. Is it easy to tell when someone is a good actor after the director and editors chop the film up after shooting? Or don't like the emotions displayed? (The Star Wars prequels come to mind.)
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, a great director can make even the worst actor act well, but not even a great actor will do a good job with a bad director. Secondly, Johnny Depp is very versitale, one of the marks of a great actor. I also admire the way he shuns big-budget action films in favour of more artistic ones.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depp is mannered - his characters are pushed to the point of near-caricature in most of the roles i've seen him perform. At the same time, he also understands how to command the screen through stillness, which, when a role of his is working, he uses to great effect. That stillness, of course, must be permitted by editor and director to remain in the finished film - but it's there.
To say that Depp is one of our great actors, and yet is one of our least "natural," is not a contradiction. He uses an imitative style of acting - he is not mugging for the audience as Carrey almost always does, but at the same time, he is also not trying to engage the audience in a warm creation of a sympathetic character. He is creating, instead, something of a piece of jewelry, which will sometimes please the audience and sometimes not, but always pleases Depp. This makes him astonishingly good sometimes, and so private as to be bewilderingly awful at others - but always, one feels, satisfied in himself.
There's a middle ground - Morgan Freeman, for instance, who is always aware of and affectionate toward the audience, but also restrained, so that he keeps a dignity that Carrey almost never even reaches for. While Depp, even when clowning, is SO dignified - i.e., so aloof from the audience - that we see him much of the time as if through a telescope held the wrong way.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think one can compare Williams and Carey to Depp anyways. As much as I enjoy Williams, to me both of them are just comedians that became so popular they got movie rolls offered them.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Williams is a comedian, he started with standup and continues to do standup, but he is also really good when he needs to be, take One Hour Photo for instance, I thought he did a phenominal job in that, and he wasn't being silly at all.
Depp really is one of the greatest actors of this age, he can play such versitile roles, and I quite enjoy his ability to entertain through that aloofness rather then through sillyness or overacting as so many do today.
Posts: 84 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is what I like about Johnny Depp. He does his own thing when he acts. It makes me respect him so much. I should see that movie on Sunday.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd just like to point out that I found Depp's Wonka far less creepifying than Violet's mother.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And didn't he get an Oscar for Good Will Hunting? Or at least a nomination? That was a wonderful movie. (Thank goodness Matt Damon won the flip to play the lead, and not Ben Affleck.)
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back to the Depp as Wonka idea, I finally saw the movie yesterday and I was so disappointed. I certainly did not expect the movie to be as charming as the original but I thought it would at least be watchable.
I thought Depp, who I loved in Pirates of the Caribbean, was AWFUL as Wonka. There was no humor in his performance; he was stiff and wooden like one of those singing little dolls that melted when he opened the factory.
The Oompa-Loompas were stupid and so were those awful songs. The only thing funny about them was the line after Augustus Gloop was sucked off about how could they possibly know the words to a song about Augustus beforehand. Even that was ruined by Depp's obnoxious chewing gum line. Where was the fantastic FUN candy room (this one was dark, creepy and totally overlooked)? Where was the scariness in the boat ride? Where was Wonka's quirkiness?
There were good things about the movie (the updated Wonkavision, the visuals of Charlie's house, Freddie Highmore as Charlie and Julia Winter as Veruca, the new squirrel scene that matched the book better) but the bad things (Depp as Wonka, stupid oompa loompas, Wonka's childhood plotline and reconciliation with his father at the end, uncharming factory-who would want to visit there?) so overshadowed it, I just couldn't wait for it to be over.
Why didn't Roald Dahl like the first one? I can't imagine he would have enjoyed this version any better. Ugh!
quote: But what do I know? This tedious film is making money hand over fist. So did the Jim Carrey Grinch and Cat in the Hat. So apparently there are huge audiences of people so bereft of imagination that the set design and special effects were dazzling, or so lonely that these performances looked like human beings to them.
I don't mean to be a grouch, but is it really necessary to insult people who enjoyed those movies? I haven't seen Cat in the Hat or How the Grinch Stole Christmas, so I can't comment on them, but I was thoroughly entertained by Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Does that make me unimaginative, or just lonely?
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: As much as I enjoy Williams, to me both of them are just comedians that became so popular they got movie rolls offered them.
Robin Williams is a Juliard-trained actor who also happens to be an incredibly talented comedian. He hasn't been offered too many roles that really stretch his acting chops, but when he does, he shines. IMHO, his comedies are much more effective than Carrey's because I actually believe his character is a real human being--which comes directly from his theatre training.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I agree totally with Miro that OSC's reviews can sometimes be very insulting to those who disagree with his opinions.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no desire to watch Depp in Wonka; the clips I've seen were enough, they creeped me out. Just like I managed to get through Edward Scissorhands but it was a painful experience, as it was probably intended to be. But I thoroughly enjoyed him in Pirates, and when he connects w/ me I think he can be downright transcendent; loved him in Finding Neverland, and What's Eating Gilbert Grape will always be one of my favorites (although DiCaprio was the scene-stealer there).
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reading the Finding Neverland review and the Wonka Review, is it safe to assume he puts people who enjoyed Wonka but didn't like Neverland in the same category? I highly enjoyed both films. But I do not fault Card for writing that way. Most critics tend to write in that fashion whenever they do reviews. Good or bad. I think a lot of critics are curious about the IQ of people who enjoy the Dukes of Hazzard moview.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I think a lot of critics are curious about the IQ of people who enjoy the Dukes of Hazzard moview.
Except that there is a pretty big difference between "The Dukes of Hazzard" and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory."
I was completely offended by the previews for "Dukes" (trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator by showing the lead female in various states of undress,) but found "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" to be a delightful film, as did most of my friends and family (ranging from my 10-year-old nephew to my 55-year-old father.) "Charlie" is not a masterpiece, but it's funny, well-acted, imaginative and much better (in my opinion) than the Gene Wilder version (as much as it hurts me to say that, being the Wilder fan that I am.)
The point I'm trying to make is that no film is universally loved or universally hated. There will always be at least a few intelligent, informed, literate people who will enjoy and appreciate a film. To not acknowledge that, and to claim that it's simply due to a fault in that person's character is juvenile and offensive. Maybe it's not that everyone who enjoyed the film is "bereft of imagination" or "lonely," but that they simply saw something in the film that Mr. Card did not. As bad as I've heard "The Dukes of Hazzard" is from a majority of the critics that I trust, I'm sure there will be a few perfectly intelligent people who enjoy it. And "Charlie" is receiving many more positive reviews than "Dukes."
The job of the critic is to review a film and state their opinion in an assured, intelligent way. At the same time they should realize that their opinion is not the only valid one, and they should not judge the intelligence of those who disagree. The best critics realize that even if they love a film - or despise it - there will be those who disagree and will have valid, intelligent reasons for doing so - and it's not just because they are too ignorant to "get it."
Posts: 1 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just saw this movie and I wasn't impressed by Johnny Depp's Willy Wonka either. Although I knew Willy Wonka was eccentric, I always pictured him as being commanding and in control of every situation. Instead, Johnny Depp gave us a socially malformed Willy Wonka who couldn't even come out with a sentence without hesitating. How are we supposed to be able to look up to that?
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
