Jump to content

Jack Nicholson is BACK!!!


Thor

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

An exceptional character actor rather than a movie star, which is what Jack is.

 

Are you saying that Jack is not a character actor?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Most movie stars arent, though many wish they were.

 

I agree with Alex. Jack is Jack. 

 

Couldn't possibly disagree more. Jack Nicholson is not only a character actor, he's the finest character actor in all of cinema history. That he's also a movie star, is inconsequential. He got to be that because of his immense talent as a character actor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, then. To me, he's the very DEFINITION of a character actor. A 'character' actor, to me, isn't only one who portrays various characters, but who also infuses them WITH character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

character actor
noun
  1. an actor who specializes in playing eccentric or unusual people rather than leading roles.

 

 

Always interesting when you develop your very own definition of a term that isn't shared by the mainstream, Thor.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, that basically sums up the first half of Nicholson's career. But the term is subjective and open to interpretation, just as the word 'character' has many different meanings. I, like many others, also apply it to leading roles -- for example (stressing the content of the role rather than its placement in the hierarchy).

 

However, I should point out that I've never really liked the word 'character actor' in the first place, and rarely -- if ever -- use it myself. It's such a vacant term, really; ALL actors play characters in one form or another. It's butter on bacon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

uKFZzE3.png

 

Now here's an actor that completely disappears into the roles he plays!

Don't forget

latest?cb=20150827023803&path-prefix=en

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jay said:

Thor is being funny again.  Jack Nicholson is definitely not a character actor, he's a leading man!

 

In the first half of his career he was not.

 

In any case, for that particular meaning, I prefer to use the terms 'primary characters' vs. 'secondary characters'. If I use 'character actor', I use it about actors who embody their roles, with often very idiosyncratic, offbeat performances. But I prefer to not use it all. It's a pointless term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jay said:

Yes, but that's not the definition of character actor the rest of the world uses, Thor.

 

It's not something that is rigidly defined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, we can have a long etymological discussion about this, if you will. But I'd rather this thread be about Jack Nicholson. Suffice to say it's a flexible term (with little actual meaning), so there's no strict be-all, end-all definition. Wikipedia, for example, acknowledges this straight off the bat:

 

Quote

A character actor or character actress is a supporting actor who plays unusual, interesting, or eccentric characters.[2][3][4][5][6][7] The term, often contrasted with that of leading actor, is somewhat abstract and open to interpretation.[8] In a literal sense, all actors can be considered character actors since they all play "characters",[9] but in the usual sense it is an actor who plays a distinctive and important supporting role.[1][10]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

It's Wikipedia, dude! Anyone can edit that shit!

 

True, but the point is that people interpret the word differently. Here in Norway, I've seen the word used in obituaries of big Hollywood stars, i.e. leading men and women, as well as secondary characters. It's such a vacant word, you can almost put anything you want in it. Which is why it's better to use an alternative.

 

But do you really want a link competition here? Do you really prefer this kind of silly nitpicking than talking about Jack Nicholson? 

 

Here are some dictionary definitions, if that's better:

 

Dictionary.com: "an actor who specializes in playing odd or eccentric characters"

Miriam-webster:  "an actor who is known for playing many different and unusual characters"

Macmillian: "an actor who plays unusual, strange, or interesting characters instead of being one of the main characters"

 

As you can see -- three different definitions that stress different things. Yours probably leans more towards the latter, while mine incorporates bits of 1 and 2. But with abstract, general terms such as these, dictionaries have no more power than anyone dealing with art crticism. In fact, quite the contrary. The meaning is with whoever uses it.

 

Apparently, this is a longrunning debate:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Character_actor

http://observationdeck.kinja.com/treacherous-terminology-just-what-is-a-character-actor-1603253649

 

We are certainly not the first to go down this road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remarkable how far you will go to justify using a phrase or term differently than what it the standard. Yes the term has some wiggle room. But you have simply applied it to something rather different.

 

Alternative facts, Thor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Remarkable how far you will go to justify using a phrase or term differently than what it the standard. Yes the term has some wiggle room. But you have simply applied it to something rather different.

 

Alternative facts, Thor?

 

No. Point is that it has no set 'standard'. Read the linked debate above. I've not applied it to something 'different' at all. Different than what you and Jay put into it, perhaps, but it's a longrunning debate.

 

And don't blame me for going into this. You were the one who started the off-topic nitpicking here, as is your custom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
5 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

 

Not a bad selection, although I personally would have made room for PROFESSIONE: REPORTER, THE KING OF MARVIN GARDENS, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE and possibly THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK (over BATMAN).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know. It's a great performance; perhaps his best within this particular style. But lately, I've grown more fond of the WITCHES performance. It's a toss-up between these two for that particular spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Five Easy Pieces might actually be his best, but yeah, they probably shouldn't have called it a ranked list. It's obviously chronological and the writer's comments don't really indicate that he's going order of preference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrbellamy said:

Five Easy Pieces might actually be his best, but yeah, they probably shouldn't have called it a ranked list. It's obviously chronological and the writer's comments don't really indicate that he's going order of preference.

 

THE SHINING will always remain the best for me, but in terms of the more low-key, understated performances, NOTHING beats PROFESSIONE: REPORTER. Spectacular film too, probably my favourite of Antonioni who's one of my favourite directors to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.