To have and have not - The Spark

[ednbarby]

This may at first seem way OT, but bear with me.

I saw "Invincible" today - the story about Vince Papale, the regular guy who actually got a spot on the Philadelphia Eagles in the 70s when Dick Vermiel had open tryouts.  Good movie.  But not great.  Why?  Story was good, inspiring, and decently written.  The reason why was Mark Wahlberg.  It's not that he can't act.  His readings are always pretty good.  It's that he has no spark.  There is no light in his eyes.  They're dead.  I wanted to care about the character - how could you not?  But I couldn't.  Not really.  At the end, they showed a few clips of the real Vince Papale.  And this guy has about a million times more charisma (as much as I hate that word, it fits) than Mark Wahlberg.  Hell, a head of butter lettuce has a million times more charisma than Mark Wahlberg.  I just watched "Miami Blues" with Alec Baldwin for the second time ever tonight - it was on one of the movie channels just now.  I'd forgotten how much I thoroughly enjoyed that movie the first time I saw it.  That's a great movie.  Well written, interesting character.  But in another's hands it would have fallen flat.  Like or hate Alec Baldwin (and I don't particularly like him, come to think of it), I could not look away from his eyes every time he was on the screen.  They were on fire.  Didn't matter how each scene was lit, what he was doing or saying - that spark, hell, inferno, was always there.

I don't mean to take away from the craft in any way - of course you've got to have some talent.  But you've got to have heart, too, and that comes through in your eyes.  And you can't act that.  When Greg Kinnear (who has it in spades, by the way) said to one of the other coaches about Papale, "He's got heart," it fell flat for me.  I know Vince Papale really did/does, but this guy playing him doesn't.  Donnie Wahlberg's got it in spades, too.  I don't for the life of me understand how Mark keeps getting these roles that he'd run circles around him playing.

Too bad about "Invincible" - it could really be something special with the right person playing the role.

OK, enough of my rambling.  For now. 

[RouxB]

Barb! How can you say that?! I must have seen an entirely different movie!
Oh, wait, I did see an entirely different movie-never mind! 


 

[ednbarby]

Barb! How can you say that?! I must have seen an entirely different movie!
Oh, wait, I did see an entirely different movie-never mind! 

 

(You had me going there for a minute.)

[delalluvia]

Thanks for the review barb.  While I love and will defend to the death Marky Mark in any of his Calvin Klein ads, I've never been impressed by his acting.  You're right, the acting has to reach every part of an actor.  Some brilliant actors can even act simply with their eyes, their feelings come out.  Some actors however, don't ever get to that level.  I'd put George Clooney in the same category.  Unless he's playing a part that's close to his own personality - a prankster or someone always on the cusp of a clever quip - he has dead eyes, shark's eyes.

[ednbarby]

Some brilliant actors can even act simply with their eyes, their feelings come out.  Some actors however, don't ever get to that level.  I'd put George Clooney in the same category.  Unless he's playing a part that's close to his own personality - a prankster or someone always on the cusp of a clever quip - he has dead eyes, shark's eyes.

I like that - shark's eyes.  That's exactly it, and exactly the problem I have with George Clooney.  It's interesting how people are still loving "Invincible" in spite of Mark Wahlberg.  I've talked to several people who've said, "Oh, yeah, that was a really good movie."  But not a one of them has said, "That Mark Wahlberg was excellent."  I can believe the physicality of him required for the role, since he's built like a brick shithouse.  But I never once saw a single spark of light in his eyes.

It surprises me no one's ever cast him as a serial killer.  He'd be perfect for it.  And I don't say that facetiously.  He must have backers who just desperately want him to be likable.  And it's not that he isn't.  He just isn't anything special.

[serious crayons]

  Hell, a head of butter lettuce has a million times more charisma than Mark Wahlberg. 

I'm glad you specified butter lettuce, Barb. Because, while I agree with this, I'd say that when compared to iceberg, Mark Wahlberg comes out slightly ahead. (Though behind romaine.)

Actually, I know exactly what you mean. He's kind of dull and nondescript and wooden. And yet ... I find something likable about him.

[delalluvia]

It surprises me no one's ever cast him as a serial killer.  He'd be perfect for it.  And I don't say that facetiously.  He must have backers who just desperately want him to be likable.  And it's not that he isn't.  He just isn't anything special.

They did.  'Fear' wherein he plays a girl's psycho boyfriend.

[ednbarby]

They did.  'Fear' wherein he plays a girl's psycho boyfriend.

Oh, RIGHT.  And you know what?  He was good in that.

Do you know, I actually have the same problem with Edward Norton.  He was excellent in "American History X," but in anything where he's required to be likable, he's just a dud.  For example, I thought he *ruined* "Red Dragon."  Probably many people disliked that one anyway, but I had loved the book after seeing "The Silence of the Lambs" and running out to buy the prequel to get a glimpse into the early Hannibal Lecter, if only briefly.  And that story ended up scaring me way more than Silence did.  I'm not usually impressionable in that way, but I had trouble sleeping without the light on for two weeks after reading Red Dragon.  And when Michael Mann made the first movie (could I get a little more aliterative?) based on it - "Manhunter" - William Petersen nailed the character of Will Graham with whom I became somewhat obsessed during my reading.  Then Edward Norton came along and not only utterly missed the mark, but basically killed his soul.  Honest to God I still don't know what that boy was thinking.  I read that Brett Ratner and he butted heads over how to play him, and Norton won.  Too bad.  Really.

[delalluvia]

The only time Ed Norton impressed me in 'Red Dragon' was when he took his shirt off.

[serious crayons]

Do you know, I actually have the same problem with Edward Norton.

Funny! I was just about to mention Edward Norton in my earlier post about Mark Wahlberg, because they're similar, at least in appearance: they both look completely average and nondescript. But I think Edward Norton is a better actor.

He was great, IMO, in "11th Hour."

[ednbarby]

The only time Ed Norton impressed me in 'Red Dragon' was when he took his shirt off.

*snork*

Must not have impressed me much because I don't remember it at all.  In his defense, I think I was too busy enjoying Rafe's nakedness (full frontal, even, in one fleeting shot) to be bothered.

I thought Phillip Seymour Hoffman was very good, if underused, as tabloid scumbag (is that redundant?) Freddie Lounds.  I've made a study of that speech Rafe gives right before he offs him ("...And before me, you rightly tremble..."), and Rafe doesn't blink once.  PSH blinks several times.  Just a question - I take it this is an acting technique to make a character non-sympathetic vs. sympathetic?  Whatever it is, it's brilliantly done in that scene.

I know it's silly, but I cannot forgive Norton for fucking up that character.  Before Jack and Ennis, Will Graham was the first and only fictional character with whom I've ever had any kind of lasting obsession.  It probably didn't help that William Petersen did it perfectly in "Manhunter" and that that movie focused on his character much moreso than on that of the killer Francis Dollarhyde.

[delalluvia]

*snork*
Must not have impressed me much because I don't remember it at all.  In his defense, I think I was too busy enjoying Rafe's nakedness (full frontal, even, in one fleeting shot) to be bothered.

Heh.  I thought I was the only person who *snorked*.  It was a fleeting scene, but I was like, 'Wow, the guy's been working out.'  Hmm, come to think of it, was this movie before or after 'Fight Club'?  Last time I saw Norton shirtless, it was in that movie with Richard Gere and he was the typical geeky toneless skinny white guy.

I had trouble with Ralph's manly body in this movie.  I always like Ralph as the fine-boned Englishman, into fencing and riding to hounds - he's a cricket man, not a rugby player.  So to try to get into his working-out-on- a-weight-bench-shirtless/wife-beater persona, the type to intimidate with his physical presence...he wasn't convincing.

I thought Phillip Seymour Hoffman was very good, if underused, as tabloid scumbag (is that redundant?) Freddie Lounds.

Perfect.  But OMG, his toenails in that one scene have haunted me ever since.  Now whenever I see the guy, I see his gnarly toenails.  Gross.

I know it's silly, but I cannot forgive Norton for fucking up that character.  Before Jack and Ennis, Will Graham was the first and only fictional character with whom I've ever had any kind of lasting obsession.

I understand perfectly.  My friends and I on another fandom board will never forgive George Lucas for his multiple sins.

[serious crayons]

Further defense of Edward Norton: I just saw "The Illusionist" and liked it a lot. And I thought he was very good in it! So was Paul Giamatti. Jessica Beil, so-so.