Greatest Actor of Our Time
- Thread starter Mojochi
- Start date
Exactly, both in terms of the "time" of the person making the selection and the "time" of the actor.
I'm old enough that, for example, Sir Laurence Oliver and Richard Burton each counts as "my time," but they're obviously not my peers and their peak was before I was before I was born.
Perhaps a better question would be "who is the greatest actor working today" but even that has some ambiguity, in that there are guys like DeNiro or Pacino who could have qualified forty years ago, are still technically working but aren't at their peak by any measure.
It's just too subjective.
For every person who says Leo, there is someone like me who feels he has a hard time acting his way out of bag. I cannot stand his limited range acting style, which has become incredibly one-note, which makes it even worse. Once upon a time in Hollywood would have been a better movie without him. There. I said it.
Harrison Ford has also become very one-note. The difference is that I like his acting style so I can deal with it better.
I honestly don't know if we can pin-point who is the greatest actor of "our time." We all have our favorites. It would be easy for me to say Laurence Olivier, but I'm sure he has his haters as well.
Kenneth Brannagh comes to mind for me, but that's mostly based on his early work with Henry V and Dead Again. His body of work has been inconsistent.
Obviously all IMHO, so your mileage varies.
For every person who says Leo, there is someone like me who feels he has a hard time acting his way out of bag. I cannot stand his limited range acting style, which has become incredibly one-note, which makes it even worse. Once upon a time in Hollywood would have been a better movie without him. There. I said it.
Harrison Ford has also become very one-note. The difference is that I like his acting style so I can deal with it better.
I honestly don't know if we can pin-point who is the greatest actor of "our time." We all have our favorites. It would be easy for me to say Laurence Olivier, but I'm sure he has his haters as well.
Kenneth Brannagh comes to mind for me, but that's mostly based on his early work with Henry V and Dead Again. His body of work has been inconsistent.
Obviously all IMHO, so your mileage varies.
Well... & this is true of almost every actor, once they reach their geriatric stage, their ability to morph tends to be drastically reduced. Sutherland has looked very similar in everything for quite some time now. At one time, Ben Kingsley could make himself almost unrecognizable, each & every film, but now... not quite as much
BTW, I'm obviously not expecting anyone to agree with my OP, but it's just struck me how much Leo has become something of a powerhouse of our current age
Okay, what kills me is that in an age where he had contemporaries like Robert DeNiro, Daniel Day Lewis, Jack Nicholson, Tom Hanks, etc., you think Leo is the actor that stands out. Really?
Using your own criteria - body of work and rising above substandard material - the actors I listed plus a host more would run rings around DiCaprio. In fact, it is arguable that the only reason he has a movie career at all is because Martin Scorsese is apparently in love with him. Yes, he turned in a bravura performance in The Revenant, but part of that success was his finally being able to not look like the tween extra kid in Growing Pains.
Daniel Day Lewis may have a small body of work by comparison, but that's because he chooses the parts he plays in a painstaking manner and gives a totally unique performance for each one. Robert DeNiro may not be as much of chameleon, but he also chooses his parts well because those parts are already tailored to him. Jack Nicholson? Come on. He's freakin' Jack Nicholson. I would pick any one of these actors to be the GOOT before I'd even think of DiCaprio.
No, I think Leo is an actor that stands out the an age after that. Christian Bale, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Jude Law etc... Maybe the guys who are a little older, Depp, Pitt, Penn, Ruffalo. Those are his contemporaries. The ones born between 1965 & maybe 1980
I will agree though that if River Phoenix had lived, I'd probably arguing in his favor here instead
This is not the same thing as "our time". My time goes back to when George C. Scott, Gene Hackman, and Marlon Brando were winning Best Actor.
That's not contemporary, that's age range. His contemporaries are actors whose careers parallel his own. He has acted with Nicholson. He has acted with Hanks. He has acted with Daniel Day Lewis. What he hasn't done is match or beat any of them in terms of talent.
But okay, once again I'll use your criteria, and once again, using your criteria, Leo is still not the GOOT. His best role, in the Revenant, doesn't beat Christian Bale's best role, the brother in The Fighter. His breakout role, in Titanic, doesn't beat Bale's breakout role in American Psycho. At best, you might say DiCaprio and Bale are in a slugging match for the GOOT title. Leo hasn't won yet.
Matt Damon may not disappear into his roles, but he hits the emotional beats of every role with a precision that puts Leo to shame. You might have an argument with Affleck, but he's a better director than an actor anyway, so he has a great consolation prize. I haven't seen as much of Jude Law as the others, so I'll give you that one.
And do you really want to bring Johnny Depp into this? He has the same M.O. as Lewis. He meticulously chooses his roles and disappears into them. Again, the only role DiCaprio has ever disappeared into was a guy attacked by a bear.
Look, bottom line is Leo DiCaprio is better than some actors, but throughout his career there have been plenty of actors that were better than him, and still are. As long as that's the case, he can't be considered the Greatest Actor of Our Time at any time.
Not to mention the late Robin Williams. He was so incredibly versatile. IMHO, the mark of a great actor is someone who will constantly challenge themselves and not just ride the coat-tails of success. There are so many actors who just seem to be doing the same roles over and over. I have high respect for those that can diversify.
DiCaprio is good, but I haven't really liked some of his more recent roles. I think that a large part of how we enjoy roles is in who they choose to ally themselves with, and what type of roles they've been tending to doing. I'm not big on Tarantino movies for instance, so part of DiCaprio's catalogue is just not that interesting to me.
Last edited:
I also look to subtlety in an actor. Sometimes the greatest roles are the ones where they're more subtle. I can't say I've seen DiCaprio ever be subtle.
You probably think this thread is about you.
This is true of any "best of" list. They tend to be biased by where one lives as much as the era, not to mention a whole lot of other intangibles.
One hit wonder bands are usually based on their US performance, even if a band did really well in their home country. There's an American-centric bias a lot of the time simply because everyone wants to "make it" here.
Having seen more than a few roles for each, I'd put Patrick Stewart & Ian McKellan out there. Stage, small screen & big screen credits to each, with a wide range of styles and ability.
To your very point.. The band Marillion... Huge following in England and abroad, but really only had one big hit here in the States thanks to Mtv. Marillion has evolved exponentially over the years, rising above the "Genesis clone" moniker with new and innovative music, and doesn't even play Kayleigh live any more. But since they never had another big hit here, they are relegated to the "where are they now" file, despite being considered one of the absolute greatest Prog bands of all time.
Who was better in X-Men? That woud be the lynchpin of the decision.
A head-to-head match. A tough call
They really knew what they were doing getting those 2 in the same movies.
That's so true. Never looked at it like that before, but I agree. Just to use the Canadian band the Barenaked Ladies for instance, most Americans would likely only know 'One Week' aka the chikita the chinese chicken song, but their domestic popularity dates back to several albums prior to that with 'If I Had a Million Dollars', being a major hit for them domestically. And then you have bands that despite their huge popularity domestically, never end up getting to be a one-hit-wonder elsewhere. It's all about being in the right place at the right time in order to be part of the zeitgeist.
Falco is another band that shows up in the MTV or VH1 "one hit wonder" shows. Rock Me Amadeus was a #1 hit in the US, but only Calling Vienna ever charted in the US after that. But they charted many times in Austria and other European countries.
I thought Falco was a "he" not a full band name. I enjoyed his music, but never really got deep into it. I do prefer Vienna Calling to Rock Me Amadeus. Tragic ending, never the less.
