While I think he's better than he gets credit for, I'd say he's fairly middling on a skill level. That said, he has a certain likability that comes across on screen and he's does well in those roles that take advantage of that.
I liken him to a poor man's Harrison Ford. The bar got raised so high after Dances With Wolves punctuated his winning streak he became an easy target and had almost nowhere to go but down. Waterworld, Wyatt Earp, Postman. That is indeed a great run when taking in all movie factors, but just off the top of my head, I have an example that rivals or even tops that, especially in a critical sense. I've watched it so many times I can tell the scenes where Costner flups his lines and, rather than reshoot the scene, Ron Shelton Writer and Director just goes with it and it works.
The scene where Crash is drunk in the bar and Nuke finally connects with a punch is one of those scenes. Costner can't get the lines right, yet the final cut works. Coming from someone who used to collect Kevin Costner movies back when you collected things like that , I can confirm that he's a pedestrian actor.
But, I think he's underrated in the business. People forget that he got an Oscar for directing Dances with Wolves. He's also been nominated for seven Razzies and won three 3! Nationaleers said Golf rules question: On Sunday, when his first shot to reach that green in two lands on the other side of the water on the green and rolls back in, the announcers and Romeo say he should just go to the drop zone.
But doesn't he get to drop from the other side of the hazard where it went in? Or not because that would be closer to the hole? Great, great movie that is really underappreciated. Miracles said No doubt because after " The Untouchables ," " Field of Dreams ," " Bull Durham " and the buzz on " Dances with Wolves ," he was seen as an authentic movie hero. Many of the reviews compared him with Gary Cooper, and maybe nobody stopped to consider that Cooper would have made a lousy Robin Hood.
In any event, Costner was seriously miscast. All of us are born with certain attributes and skills--with notes we can play and other notes we can't reach. Costner, who has had perfect pitch in many of his roles who else could have pulled off "Field of Dreams? A less subtle, more physical actor like Kurt Russell , Dennis Quaid or Patrick Swayze might have been more appropriate.
While pondering the mysteries of casting, consider the surprise cameo by Sean Connery in the movie. It gets a shout of joy from the audience--the most relaxed and sincere cheer in the whole film. Maybe that's because by his very presence Connery suggests the kind of acting note that is appropriate in any film with Robin Hood in its title.
Connery is the kind of actor whose presence suggests he can get away with murder. Costner, by nature, is more of a Hamlet--a man at home with doubts and moral dilemmas.
If there had been more time to consider and prepare the movie, perhaps Costner or his advisors would have arrived at this realization themselves, and found a graceful way to exit.
But " Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves " was engaged in a race to the box office with another Robin Hood project, and there was no time for second thoughts.
Costner started shooting almost immediately after finishing " Dances with Wolves ," with no rehearsal time, no time for screen-testing his look or listening to his accent, no time to try different approaches to the role. Given no time to prepare, Costner found himself playing Robin Hood as a character a great deal like Costner--modest, friendly, accommodating, sincere, and a little doubtful.
Those are not qualities Robin Hood should have anything to do with. Not along ago, in Hollywood, I was talking with an actor who told me, "Paramount wants me to do something in a couple of months. They say they'll come up with something. Was the screenplay ever really finished? Was it written to have a tone and a consistent approach, or was it cobbled to meet the demands of second-guessers? Were rewrites being done on a daily basis, and basic concepts being argued even as the movie was being shot?
That's what has been reported. Everyone who has seen the movie--Costner included--has agreed that Alan Rickman, as the Sheriff of Nottingham, seems to be appearing in a different movie than anyone else in the cast.
To add to the irony, it is a more entertaining movie. How did that happen? How did Costner get lines of stolid, plodding nobility, while Rickman was written as a hip, bitchy villain who would have been at home in "Batman?
Case closed. Don't get me wrong. I actually like Kevin Costner. It's hard not to. I think he's probably a really nice guy. I'd sit and have a beer with him any time. Does not seem pretentious to me like other good-looking actors, say But I think KC is a lousy actor and I think the actual record demonstrates that I am not wrong about that. Yes, I do. Wow, you figured that out all by yourself?
Time for you to learn something new. If the director doesn't like what he's seeing, he calls "cut. They roll again. If you're someone like Stanley Kubrick, you keep rolling hundreds of times until you get what you want out of the actor.
If you think "He's a big star! No director would stand up to him! Every actor takes direction, and most of them enjoy the process of finding their character and performance. And even if he didn't, word would spread, and no one would want to work with him. The list of greats who never won Academy Awards, etc. And the list of people who won awards and their careers went nowhere is equally long.
There is no correlation between talent and awards. I think the actual record demonstrates that I am not wrong about that. And the fact is that A-list directors are hiring him to be in their movies. My money is that they know more about this than you do. Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate your opinion, but that's all it is. Your condescension "Wow, you figured that out all by yourself? I treated you with respect, I expect the same.
A film does not begin and end with the director. Despite what you think. Directors respond to what producers want. And producers respond to what studio heads want. And with rare exceptions, studio heads respond to what sells.
A KC film draws viewers and money. That does not mean he can act. If you think a director who does not get what he wants from a major star can just jettison him for someone else, that simply isn't the case. It is more likely that another director will be brought in than that a money-star will be axed. Again, it does happen, but it's hardly the rule. By the way, I browsed through KC's films. This was a major dramatic role for KC. He was not nominated. Yet Tommy Lee Jones was for supporting.
Awards from his peers are the better indicator. There are few, not "a pretty darn long list" of great actors who never won Academy Awards. Sometimes that was political. You would no doubt want to name, say a John Wayne as an example. But John Wayne was not a great actor.
He was an icon of film, America's tough guy, irascible but still likeable, box office But not a great actor. That's why he didn't win until very late for True Grit which was more of a life-time award than anything and was nominated only one other time 20 years earlier.
But here's the thing; KC doesn't even get nominated. Why not? No such evaluation process is perfect or absolute. But IMO awards from peers are the best indicator. Costner doesn't have them, and his body of work is long and he has done plenty of serious roles.
The rest of the movie-making process is more money-oriented than anything. The voting process isn't. Perhaps "Kevin Costner can't act" is a bit of hyperbole. If you want to argue that, I'll grant it. I guess everybody can act a little. But I think without his looks and likability to get him started he would have had a different career. I would call him journeyman at best with acting talent fit for regional theatre.
Not much more. I shall settle this once and for all Case closed Sorry if I was condescending, but your statements indicated a level of, shall we say, self importance? I'm talking about the filming process. You're talking about the production process leading up to that. Yes, a studio may have a star attached to a project before the director arrives, and he has nothing to say about it. But once the cameras are rolling, the actor and director work together to shape the performance. That's the way it works, and you seem to be oblivious to that fact.
What you see in the finished film is what the director wants you to see, not what he was stuck with by an immature actor who doesn't play well with others.
As for directors he's worked with, you're right there. Some of them multiple times. You might make the case that they got stuck with him once, but two or three times? Okay, you don't like him.
My point exactly. Of course, once he's got the actor in his movie, he does the best he can with him. That's a given. I am "oblivious" to nothing, including your continued condescension. That kind of trivia does not help your case, gnome. Do you think Howard insisted I looked up every major director you mentioned.
They seem to be finished with Costner more than 20 years ago That's odd! The one exception was Branagh in "Jack Ryan", a demanding role requiring extreme acting ability on the closeups! In fact, Costner just doesn't get really strong dramatic roles with big-name directors and there's a reason for that.
Your Oscar "data" is distorted and on at least one point wrong. And I'm only counting Best Actor Haven't looked at the details of that, but that strikes me as odd.
Clint Eastwood, fine actor, better film maker. Two nominations. Lost to Pacino, Scent of a Woman. John Travolta same category as Costner I didn't run across a single person on the list that had No nominations Many of these are also journeyman actors who have done a good performance or two but see note on awards themselves below.
So he is in the company of a number of journeyman actors as well. Neeson is a good example. One fine dramatic role in Schindler's List.
Lost to Tom Hanks for Philadelphia. Though I will say, my favorite sword fight scene The film industry has changed so I'm not sure it's fair to compare today's films and performances with those from 75 years ago. And I'm not sure that some on this list don't have a much smaller body of work, particularly in big films, than Costner.
0コメント