Everybody loves Denzel

[[wcip]Angel]

Went to the movies tonight and saw "American Gangster". Being a huge (!!!) fan of The Sopranos, I knew this movie would fall into the shadow of what I consider to be the best television series ever. I had heard good things about the movie though, both from friends and reviewers, and I consciously tried to judge the movie on its own merits and focus on liking it.

Surprising thing is, I did!

Ridley Scotts outing is nowhere near the legendary Goodfellas of Scorsese, but it's a fun way to spend two and a half hours.

What irked me, and had been for some time, is Denzel Washington. I'm in no way suggesting that he's incapable of acting, overrated, or anything of the kind. Neither is he typecast in any way, as he plays a wide variety of characters... sort of. What frustrates me is that I get a strange sense of deja vu when I watch him act (pause for irony). It's impossible for Denzel to be typecast, because he no longer portrays "types" (characters) on film, but rather Denzel Washington - the actor. His mood, tone, expression, attitude; it's all the same in all the movies he does. He plays the same over-confident, charismatic, arrogant guy, no matter what movie he's in.He's basically James Bond with a new name in each of his movies. It's the same 'character', but placed in different roles for various movies.

I hate Denzel. Not for the fact that he does a poor job acting. His acting chops are fine; I just don't understand why he's relegated to act as "Denzel" in every movie he does. I hate Denzel, because he actually detracts from the overall quality of the film. As a member of the audience, I get tired watching Denzel, because I feel I've watched him do that role a hundred times over already.

Anyone else noticed this or am I just insane?

[Munkay]

Angel' date='Dec 28 2007, 06:31 PM' post='142028']
Anyone else noticed this or am I just insane?

Nope, not crazy. You'll enjoy this story by the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2...denzel_dilemma/

Film critic Wesley Morris agrees with you completely.

Cheers,

Munk

[[wcip]Angel]

I did enjoy that.:)

Thanks, Munkay. He put it much better than I ever could:)

[Merlinios]

The problem you describe is not confined to Washington; it permeates a good deal of Hollywood. Nearly everyone plays the same character in every movie they're in. I'm tempted to attribute this to a simple lack of acting ability. Sure, they're good at those characters, but are they really even acting, or just letting some part of their own psyche up to the surface (or even just being their everyday selves)?

There are veeeery few modern actors with actual range. Hoffman. Geoffrey Rush. If you put these guys in some makeup, I can't even tell it's them until the movie is halfway over.

This phenomenon doesn't necessarily make for bad movies, however (other factors are at work there). Indeed, I think it lets directors pick exactly the character they're looking for a lot of the time, but it doesn't impress.

--me

[Quark]

I was watching The Departed for the first time two days ago, and I think you could replace "Denzel Washington" with "Jack Nicholson" and then replace a few adjectives you listed and have a perfectly sound statement.

[lorecraft]

Denzel > all.

[Baylan]

Denzel > all.

I've gotta agree with that.

I'm a huge Denzel fan. Also a huge Gene Hackman fan. Maybe I just like psuedo-military thriller types...

I think thats it.

[Occhidiangela]

So the drunk, at loose ends ex soldier he played in Man on Fire is the same as the cop in Deja Vu is the same as Malcom X?

Hmm. Don't see it.

Occhi

[Munkay]

So the drunk, at loose ends ex soldier he played in Man on Fire is the same as the cop in Deja Vu is the same as Malcom X?

Hmm. Don't see it.

Occhi

The similarities aren't in the roles per se, but on a smaller level. It's all rather illusory to put into words, but take for example the way Denzel smiles. There's something about his face which expresses a cool confidence that you can't find in the run of the mill Hollywood actor.

To put it a different way, there's something about it that makes me admire his character, or at the very least empathize with him in every role. For instance, if you cast Denzel as a character made of pure evil, there'd still be something about the way in which he carries himself, the small things that make him unique that would draw you to his character. There just is something about him as an actor (a superb one I might add) that shines through all of his roles.

Its part of what makes him great, but its also something that after watching a lot of his movies, permeates his roles. As Merlinios pointed out its not necessarily a bad thing.

To summarize it in yet another form, when you go to see a Denzel film you know what his character is going to be like, even if the details might vary from one film to another.

Cheers,

Munk

[Rhydderch Hael]

...This phenomenon doesn't necessarily make for bad movies, however (other factors are at work there). Indeed, I think it lets directors pick exactly the character they're looking for a lot of the time, but it doesn't impress.

"...Sean Connery, or an actor of equal and cheaper stature..."

[VinnieJones]

Lawrence Fishbourn > Denzel. iik.:D

[kandrathe]

Anyone else noticed this or am I just insane?

I agree with you, but is it the actor? I can think of hundreds of A list actors who fall into the same category. And then, historically, consider Dean Martin, James Cagney, or Cary Grant. Did any of them exhibit a tremendous range of character? Sometimes. Maybe when they are allowed the time and flexibility to develop another character. I can just see an impatient director yelling at Denzel to be more, well, like Denzel and quit screwing around. In contrast look at two actors who are extremely diverse, Johnny Depp, and Nicolas Cage. So, maybe, it is the system of how movies and actors are made, rather than the individuals who exhibit the symptoms. I think the current Hollywood system encourages predictable mediocrity over risking too much on quality.

[Lissa]

I agree with you, but is it the actor? I can think of hundreds of A list actors who fall into the same category. And then, historically, consider Dean Martin, James Cagney, or Cary Grant. Did any of them exhibit a tremendous range of character? Sometimes. Maybe when they are allowed the time and flexibility to develop another character. I can just see an impatient director yelling at Denzel to be more, well, like Denzel and quit screwing around. In contrast look at two actors who are extremely diverse, Johnny Depp, and Nicolas Cage. So, maybe, it is the system of how movies and actors are made, rather than the individuals who exhibit the symptoms. I think the current Hollywood system encourages predictable mediocrity over risking too much on quality.

Change Cage to Seymour Hoffman and I agree. Cage's abilities have waned significantly in the past 5 yars in his range.

And why hasn't Depp gotten atleast one Oscar so far? Depp deserves an Oscar over just about any actor out there right now.

[[wcip]Angel]

I agree with you, but is it the actor? I can think of hundreds of A list actors who fall into the same category. And then, historically, consider Dean Martin, James Cagney, or Cary Grant. Did any of them exhibit a tremendous range of character? Sometimes. Maybe when they are allowed the time and flexibility to develop another character. I can just see an impatient director yelling at Denzel to be more, well, like Denzel and quit screwing around. In contrast look at two actors who are extremely diverse, Johnny Depp, and Nicolas Cage. So, maybe, it is the system of how movies and actors are made, rather than the individuals who exhibit the symptoms. I think the current Hollywood system encourages predictable mediocrity over risking too much on quality.

Personally, I haven't experienced the 'Denzel'-syndrome with that many actors, but then again, I don't watch that many movies. I prefer television. (Currently enjoying Season 1 of Steven Bochco's "Murder One" for the umpteenth time:P)

But I see your point, and you may be right.

To speculate a bit, perhaps it's the notion in Hollywood that movies need to cater to audience expectations, because we've become so lazy, we're not willing to accept anything that's a little out of the ordinary. The process of making a movie is at this stage in history so saturated by commercialism, that the studios can't take the chance of producing a flop. Giving the audience what they expect (e.g a "Denzel movie"), might be one way of ensuring that your average movie-goer walks away happy. Betraying their pre-conceived notion by allowing Denzel his full range of emotion and characters, and thus producing something that conflicts with those notions, might be enough to jar the audience into disliking the movie.

Still, these are just thoughts...

[kandrathe]

Personally, I haven't experienced the 'Denzel'-syndrome with that many actors, but then again, I don't watch that many movies. I prefer television. (Currently enjoying Season 1 of Steven Bochco's "Murder One" for the umpteenth time:P)

But I see your point, and you may be right.

To speculate a bit, perhaps it's the notion in Hollywood that movies need to cater to audience expectations, because we've become so lazy, we're not willing to accept anything that's a little out of the ordinary. The process of making a movie is at this stage in history so saturated by commercialism, that the studios can't take the chance of producing a flop. Giving the audience what they expect (e.g a "Denzel movie"), might be one way of ensuring that your average movie-goer walks away happy. Betraying their pre-conceived notion by allowing Denzel his full range of emotion and characters, and thus producing something that conflicts with those notions, might be enough to jar the audience into disliking the movie.

Still, these are just thoughts...

To go farther... Think of a studio painter who makes paintings to order, as opposed to one who paints what they feel. Maybe Denzel is the velvet Elvis of drama. Literature suffers commercialism as well once an author is noticed, but not so much as film.