He has more Oscars than the both of them but it seems like he’s not considered that great of an actor compared to them. Why?
https://www.datalounge.com/thread/30496432-why-is-jack-nicholson-not-held-in-the-same-esteem-as-al-pacino-and-robert-de-niro-
I enjoy watching him in films, but he seems to have a very limited range. You can make the case he plays the same basic character every time. He's great at it, don't get me wrong, but you always know you're watching Nicholson. De Niro and Pacino have far greater range, and I feel they bring so much more to the screen than does Nicholson.
shareJack Nicholson plays Jack Nicholson every time.
shareYou are an absolute fucking idiot. Watch The Last Detail, Five Easy Pieces, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, The Shining, About Schmidt, Easy Rider, Chinatown. All very different roles and different characters. You are the biggest fucking idiot alive.
shareAnd so is everyone who does not agree with you?
I am sure you are not allowed to use these words in primary school...
What is it with some people when they get online? Where does all that rage come from? I can't imagine they'd behave or speak that way in a face-to-face conversation.
shareI can only imagine that they are mobbed and harassed all day. Maybe call center staff?
shareThey have to repress their rage in the real world.
shareGeez dude. You could take out your first and last sentence and you’d still say the same things without all the insults.
shareNeedlessly aggressive. Why are you calling him a moron?
shareWhat's your problem. Agree or disagree, he's got a legitimate point. This kind of ugliness ruins social media.
shareYou have hooker parts buried in your backyard, or a frightened abducted child wearing a gimp mask locked up in your basement. It's written all over your post.
shareI disagree with that. I think he has more range than people give him credit for. He has a distinct-sounding voice and that shark-grin makes him seem similar from role to role ("They all have the same smile!") But I do think he presents very different people.
What proofs have I? Well...
In As Good as it Gets, Jack gives us a multi-phobic personality who lashes out because he's scared. Watch his reactions to germs. His aloofness. Everything is motivated from those insecurities and he's a very vulnerable guy with prickly armour.
Compare that to The Departed. Here, Jack is a balls-out hedonist, reckless and cocky. He's sleazy, smarmy, and a little nuts.
These two guys might sound like Jack Nicholson, but the reality is that he shares a set of vocal cords between all his guys.
Now, if the argument is that Jack doesn't change his voice to match roles, okay. But I don't think that's the same thing as playing the same guy.
Some people are total chameleons - almost unrecognizable from one role to the other. The obvious, popular guy here is Daniel Day-Lewis, but lots of people have accomplished this.
Others play the same person over and over. Character actors. Best example I can think of is Debi Mazar. Can she do anything other than the bitchy New Yorker? Don't know. (Don't care; she's awesome at it).
Most are in the middle. Movie stars especially - they take their persona wherever they go. Think about guys like Al Pacino, Liam Neeson, and Robert Downey Jr. They have distinctions, but you can usually tell pretty quickly that it's them. But they are presenting different characters.
So, basically, for me, somewhere between "Daniel Day-Lewis" and "Debi Mazar" sits Jack Nicholson.
You have a point, but the thing with Nicholson is his weaselly smart ass voice is the same - even though his characters are different. I like Nicholson, as much as any other actor. Actor are just people given the childish job of pretending to be other people in different circumstances - WRITERS MAKE UP, and DIRECTORS MANAGE. I think actors are way over-rated, and they get the feelings displaced from the character and the movie, even the special effects they take part in. Our worship of the people who do virtually nothing in the world is bad for everyone.
shareTo a point I agree. I understand that Nicholson has a distinct voice and look , and I do think that's why people think he's playing the same guy. But he is capable of range.
Actors do get too much credit, and celebrity is a bizarre facet of human society that makes little sense. Why do we turn a guy who says lines into a god? Why do we worship somebody who runs really fast and carries a leather bladder from one side of a field to another?
Where I disagree is on a couple of points about actors. First, I don't know if you were just using the term for effect or humour, but it isn't a childish job. Creating art is something children do and adults have beaten out of them (often), but childish implies immaturity or something superfluous, fatuous, or inappropriate for adults to undertake. Acting is not in that camp.
Second, they don't do virtually nothing. They're storytellers. I do agree with you that other production team members deserve more credit than they get and actors probably deserve less, but creating art isn't "virtually nothing". Try living without it for a week, if you doubt what I say.
Third, again, we agree that directors and writers are other major elements of the storytelling/moviemaking/art creation process, and that actors (often) get too much credit in that trio. But I would add editors to the mix (a MAJOR force in how a movie turns out), probably composers as well, each of whom get less credit than anybody (especially editors - how many people could even name one editor?) And of the "triumvirate" mentioned, writers get the short end of the stick every time and directors get, I think, more credit than they deserve.
To that point, I have seen good actors and bad actors, and there is a difference. They aren't just reading words writers gave them in a manner told to them by directors. The only way to really, scientifically (or close to, anyway) test this, of course, would be to take the same script and the same director and different actors and view the results. But I'd be willing to bet that good actors come off generally better and make better art.
Just picture sitting down to watch an uncut version of Hamlet, directed by a major talent director, and you crack open the playbill and see who's playing the Dane: imagine two versions of this where in one you see Hamlet is played by Daniel Day-Lewis and another in which the role will be taken on by Jaden Smith, and imagine your anticipation or dread.
You bring up some reasonable and good points, but there are some cracks in there.
> but creating art isn't "virtually nothing". Try living without it for a week, if you doubt what I say.
Art is a pretty big word and covers a lot. You could call commercials art, or criminal acts such as 911 even, which I think is part of why it was so terrifying and mobilizing. There is art that distracts us from the void, that objectifies us ... and I think more and more the crop of actors today at least ( not sure how to apply this to the part ) that will do anything for money; more, more, more and damn the consequences or meaning of what they have done.
> imagine two versions of this where in one you see Hamlet is played by Daniel Day-Lewis and another in which the role will be taken on by Jaden Smith
This sort of prove my point at least as well as it does yours, Jaden Smith v. Daniel Day-Lewis, Trump Tower v. Zanadu (Citizen Kane), or era specific clothes v. Target Specials ... the actor is a visual effect chosen to further the feeling of the programming.
We all have our favorite actors or unfavorite actors. I've never cared for Will Smith, or Jaden, but dammit, sometime they put someone I hate in what I think of as a good movie. I held "Enemy Of The People" in quite high esteem as a movie even though it had Will Smith in it, albeit before he mugged for the camera and was a ham and screen hog ... like in I. Robot.
Thanks for the thoughtful, intelligent comment. It does happen on MovieChat every year or few months ;-)
Okay. Fair enough, "art" is a big umbrella. I think most people aren't going to call criminal acts "art", but your point is well-taken.
For the purposes of this conversation, was mostly talking about the "dramatic arts" related to actors and other performers of fictions, but I would include standard art-stuff like visual arts (paintings, sculpture), music, dance, etc.
As to artists who only seek more-more-more, that's maybe a peripheral conversation about human greed and the commodification of the sublime. I'll nutshell a vast topic here: I see "committee-built" films and I see "artist driven films" (and I know lines are blurred) and the more committee-built box-checking that goes on, the duller the movie almost every time.
An actor is not a visual effect. They bring their own artistic sensibilities to roles and some are better than others (generally-speaking). And again, I do agree with you that they are given more credit than they are due, they can also elevate (or worsen) material because they're good or bad at their jobs. I read the screenplay for Pirates of the Caribbean and Johnny Depp's brilliant take on Jack Sparrow isn't on the page. The swashbuckling, self-important bravado is, but all the ticks and quirks and bits of physicality and tone choices aren't there. Now, I don't say Gore Verbinski didn't help develop it with Depp, but Depp was certainly a major element (from what I've read) and brought a LOT to the table. Not to mention pulling it off. It's one thing to know that something should be done (directing) and another to pull it off. Need we look any further than Quentin Tarantino? He knows what should be done (good director) but rarely pulls off a good performance ("meh" actor).
Also very interesting to think about bad actors in good movies or actors we don't care about in movies we love, like your Enemy of the People example. I'd cite Keanu Reeves in the '90s Dracula movie (although I don't loathe Reeves, generally, depending on how he's used, but he was a HUGE misfire in Dracula).
And thank you as well for this interesting conversation.
Just wanted to chime in here & say this’s a great post, Ace. Couldn’t agree more.
Glad to see a knowledgeable post/debate on this site.
Thanks! I find that, as long as people are willing to hear each other out, and as long as they aren't just trying to get on a soapbox and yell, good conversations can be had.
There are a bunch on this site, particularly on pages like Jack's - which aren't as contentious as other pages (Bill Murray at the moment, for example).
I would call Nicholson an actor like Jimmy Stewart - someone who can only play a limited range of characters, but who gives that limited range of characters tremendous depths of feeling and interest, and who can play across many genres. Someone like Stewart or Nicholson always seems to be the same person on the surface, as the face, voice, and mannerisms are always the same, but in one film "Jack" or "Jimmy" may be convincingly sweet and funny, and in others, scary or tragic.
I would consider Nicholson and Stewart and other such actors to be extremely talented and highly skilled, but really, the highest praise is always reserved for actors who can play a wider range of characters. Nicholson may be able to play funny, tragic, scary, or romantic modern Americans... but like Stewart, he can really only play modern Americans. A really top actor, like the late Alan Rickman, can play funny aliens, tragic Shakespear heroes, scary French kings, or romantic ghosts. How many of Rickman's roles could Nicholson have played.
Deniro and Pacino might have had more range and seminal moments on screen..but, I think Jack brought more butts in the seats in the 70's, 80's, 90's/ early aughts. Nicholson was money in the bank almost every single movie.
Deniro and Pacino had a lot of hit movies, but they had a lot of bombs as well. Jack seemed to always hit a home run.
That's not what being a good actor is about.
shareBy playing a wider range of characters and genres, there was an increased probability that Pacino and De Niro would chose projects that did not appeal to the wider base of cinema goer. If you are known for a narrower field of work, then the audience have a clearer idea what they will be paying for.
shareyes, exactly!
shareNicholson actually seems to be held in higher esteem than either of them, especially Pacino. They mostly play urban tough guys over and over. Nicholson has done a lot more variety of roles.
shareHe is. or was. Its just hes retired last decade or so and thus fallen off the radar abit unlike AP/RDN who continue to work and work and work. they'll probably sign up for MCU and star wars next (probably have lots of bills, ex wives etc)
shareDe Niro's already well along the road to Comic Book movies. He was in Joker a couple of years ago.
shareWhat? Jack is still king. Al and Rob both became quirky weirdos. This dude will always be the Shining.
shareAgreed! Jack wipes the floor with those guys. The only Pacino movie I really enjoy is Scarecrow, and the only decent De Niro flick is Taxi Driver. Jack excels in EVERYTHING he's done.
shareAs an objective matter, Nicholson has three Oscars -- DeNiro, two -- Pacino, one. Fair or unfair(as the Oscars always are), Jack has that lead as of today.
But also importantly for Nicholson, he got one Oscar per DECADE -- for Cuckoo's Nest in the 70;s, Terms of Endearment in the 80s, and As Good As It Gets in the 90s.
Which is where Nicholson really outpaces the other two: the sheer number of classics in which he appeared in his career(which now seems to be over while DeNiro and Pacino have a few more at bats as old men.)
Nicholson had Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, and Carnal Knowledge out before Pacino and DeNiro made their names (The Godfather and Mean Streets respectively.) In the 80's , Nicholson had The Shining, Reds, Terms of Endearment, Prizzi's Honor, The Witches of Eastwick and the "capper" of Batman while DeNiro spent much of the decade "unbankable"(until The Untouchables and Midnight Run) and Pacino flat out took four years off. (For Pacino, the 80's were pretty much Scarface and Sea of Love, and that's it. He came back in the NINETIES.)
In the 90s, Nicholson AND Pacino AND DeNiro all became very hot "prestige character superstars" -- big bucks just to be in movies. Pacino won his only Oscar for Scent of a Woman, Nicholson was nominated for A Few Good Men( a very famous role in only 3 scenes) and won for As Good As It Gets. DeNiro here saved himself by sticking with Scorsese(GoodFellas, Cape Fear, Casino) but rather started to turn into a rather dumb version of his old artistic self.
CONT
All these guys worked steadily in the 2000s -- but Jack called it quits in 2010(doing a favor for his buddy James L. Brooks by taking a small part the nothing "How Will I Know?".) His last full-length role was in 2007's The Bucket List, a not terribly well reviewed movie that has gone on to be a "classic phrase." Jack also got his sole Scorsese movie in that decade, and was wonderfully "dull and plain" in About Schmidt.
We still have Al and we still have Bob...and its Bob who stays big time -- Joker was a monster hit. But Al and Bob in The Irishman was a good time too.
I suppose it is a combination of being older than DeNiro and Pacino -- and less fit(weight issues)-- that has taken Jack out of competition with them now. But THEN, its Jack Nicholson's decades, pretty much all the way. Very careful career management, took the best projects with the best scripts and the best directors. Turned down a lot. Maintained a star persona that --like Pacino's -- shifted to the VOICE as he grew older and less sexy.
Its Jack. It was always Jack.