Faces of Future Movies, The Men
Saturday, October 8, 2011 at 9:08AM In this week's column at Towleroad, I meant to just type up a few words about The Ides of March and continue the possibly tired 2011 motif of drooling all over Ryan Gosling as he completes his ascendance to alpha dog of Hollywood's new pack.
What 's your take on Hollywood's male talent pool (under 35 division)?
Instead I went hundreds of words overboard and it morphed into a substantial but by no means complete summary of the male acting talent under 35. I figured why not since the movies currently in theaters are all about the male stars: Gosling, Gordon-Levitt, Jackman, Clooney, Pitt, etcetera.
In the article you can read about whose work I'm most looking forward to and who may have already peaked (though I hope not). There's also a brief bit about the overvalued that still need to justify Hollywood's faith in them... and my personal pleas for the grossly undervalued.
It's an extension of the conversation we started here a month ago about whether Gos' and Fassy had any competition as "Future of the Movies". (Naturally, this made me want to do a similar longer piece on the actresses but that's so much more expected and will have to wait.)
Answer me these questions three
1. Who are you rooting for in the next five years of the movies?
2. If you were a casting director which undervalued lesser known player would you go to bat for?
3. Would you dig more Film Experience digging into the depth of the young(er) talent pool?
Joseph Gordon-Levitt, List-Mania, Ryan Gosling, Towleroad, casting
Reader Comments (36)
I think you forgot about James McAvoy. ;-) - otherwise, great article!
Steve -- oh crap. he was supposed to be in the top ten ;)
Rooting for- I really think that Gosling/Fassy/Garfield are set for the next 5 years. Especially the first two. They will be the safe bet.
Casting for Undervalued actors- This is more of a fan girl thing, but there's a British actor named Tom Sturridge who I think might have oodles of talent if only he gets to show. And I love Sam RIley, totally won me over in Control.
Film Experience should continue- yes, duh. Great article :)
One question though- Where do you think someone like Daniel Radcliffe or other Potter people fit?
I'm glad you put a picture between numbers 2 and 3 here, because Fassbender and Gosling are miles ahead of their contemporaries right now; it's as if they're already in a full sprint and the others are still flexing. (-You must've thought highly of Shame to go Fassbender over Gosling?) Your top 5 are hard to argue with, but I would agree McAvoy should be amongst this grouping, even ahead of Bell. I also think you might be underestimating Armie Hammer. I thought he was excellent in The Social Network and I expect pretty big things from him.
I also think James Franco is sort of talent-free. I don't recognize him as having any type of charisma whatsoever actually. He did good work in Pineapple Express but it seems like stoned and douchey are his only skills as an actor.
I think Tahar Rahim warrants mention if only for his performance in A Prophet. I also think Chris Hemsworth and Chris Pine may have some potential given more challenging roles.
I think an interesting idea to take note of here is the age range we've landed on to discuss the next generation of actors. 35 probably is the best age for the cutoff here but isn't this a little old for next big thing status? Even just the prior generation of Pitt, Depp, DiCaprio, Clooney, Crowe, etc had made their mark before 30 in one way or another. It seems to have taken quite a while for this talented group to land roles worthy of them. In terms of the time in which these actors broke out, Jeremy Renner really fits in with these gentlemen. 50 really is the new 40.
Oh I forgot about Matthew Goode. I really think he should have gotten his big role by now. If I had it my way, he would be cast as the Beast in Del Toro's Beauty and the Beast or as Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, if and when it gets made.
Lee Pace is Love. So, 1.) I am definitely rooting for him no matter what. 2.) Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Cillian Murphy were great in "Inception" but I could really see them in more features, especially here across the pond? (Yes. I saw 'Peacock'.) 3.) Sure!
I like the question about the Harry Potters, I'd really give them a chance :) Like, yes, I watched and enjoyed 'Water for Elephants'!
Casey -- you're right but i think the age at which people "break" varies greatly AND it's complicated by how well the previous set of stars ages (i.e. stays on their thrones) . I mean, the current Kings of Hollywood have had a very long run which is why I think it's only just visibly shifting right about now. (and even then, it's not like DiCaprio --younger but basically part of the older brigade which is what happens when you ascend really early as he did -- and a few other superstars (but Pitt for sure) are going anywhere anytime soon with have several high profile promising projects on the way.
I can't sign on with Chris Pine who is capable but i've never once been transported (i.e. i've never once thought someone else couldn't have done the job with more idiosyncarcy, charisma or depth) and Hemsworth i think it's way too soon to know. I've only seen him in Thor.
i definitely need to right more about this because Michael Fassbender said something interesting about this very topic (breakout and age) the other day at a press conference.
Nikhat -- obviously i am not representative in anyway of mainstream thinking when it comes to Harry Potter so take this with a huge grain of salt. But i don't really see big careers for any of them. They will be famous for their entire lives but they will always he Harry, Hermione and Ron. If they were remarkable actors I could see them coming up with other signature characters but in order to shake something that mammoth you've got to really have the Superstar Charisma if you're not an acting genius. in other words I think they're all in the Mark Hammill school rather than the Harrison Ford school if we consider Star Wars a precedent which I think we should.
MATTHEW GOODE. i forgot him too.
My top five is Ryan Gosling, Andrew Garfield, JGL, Fassbender and McAvoy. I'm seeing Shame tomorrow but as of right now I'd say that Joseph's given the best performance between all of them in Mysterious Skin but that Andrew showed even more promise than him in Boy A, while Ryan's just on top for his streak of The Believer, Half Nelson, Lars and the Real Girl and Blue Valentine. Hunger puts Fassy on this list but I'm so excited to see what he does in Shame which I've only heard tops it.
Just throwing out names you might want to consider: Jake Gyllenhaal, Gael Garcia Bernal, Jesse Eisenberg, Jamie Bell. And I'm so glad no one mentioned Orlando Bloom.
Nathaniel - You're certainly right about the longevity of the previous generation and I think that's an interesting thing to note. The tides of cinema seem inexact at best when generational trends are the topic on hand and I think younger stars like DiCaprio and Bale always throw a wrench into the expected transitions and such. I mean to say, we agree that Fassbender is the "best young actor" working right now, but Dicaprio and Bale are much closer in age to he the Clooney. Food for thought.
Either way, I enjoyed the piece.
Casey -- totally true. Leo & Bale are 37ish while Fassbender is 34... but there's always a few young guns that are superstars before the usual time... and thus they get grouped in with their elders in the imagination.
It reminds me of that section of "Pictures at a Revolution" on Bonnie & Clyde and the actresses considered for the role. Mark Harris point out that Natalie Wood was the same approximate age as most of the "new hollywood" crop like Jane Fonda and Faye Dunaway who were on the rise and shake things up but she was Old Hollywood to the core.
1. Fassbender, Gosling and Hardy. And though not in that top three I also like the other Ryan, Ryan Reynolds. His comedic side, at least.
2. No idea, I'm never the first one to discover someting, in case you hadn't noticed reading my comments :)
3. Do as you please, but please don't forget you included "talent" in that question. Not ge-ni-us, it's not necessary, but at least talent. I'd like the presence of more actors, if only because there's an interesting crop right out there.
I think the generation gap in male movie stars is at leart partly to blame on the generation previous to this one and following the Pitts, Dicaprios, Depps, etc, that never panned out. I'm talking about Hayden Christiansen, Matthew McConaughey (am I'm the only lazy one that copies and pastes his last name from IMDB?), Ryan Philippe, Jason Biggs, Paul Walker, etc. I'm sure I'm forgetting a lot of names, but I'm talking about that generation. It'd be interesting to recover your posts on those magazine covers with future stars and see how many actors of that generation got lost in the way.
Interested in seeing what Cera can do with Magic Magic, to be honest. After the commercial failure of Scott Pilgrim, he's fallen off notice a bit. But, he looks to be going in some very unique directions (one of his next films is foreign language). Eisenberg, by comparison, looks to be either behind the times or takes every offer even if it's seems like he'd not be in it if he asked, "should an Oscar nominee be involved in this" (see: Eisenberg's signed up to be in a freaking Louis Letterier movie.) Chris Evans: I think he knows he's mostly just charming. Captain America is likely to be his last major role. Franco: He's just doing every weird thing that catches his eye. Gyllenhaal: He's a good actor. He makes solid choices, even if every choice doesn't turn out the best. Emile Hirsch: Looks to maybe have an interesting supporting role in Oliver Stone's next "crazy thriller". Chaning Tatum: Certainly hasn't peaked yet. I'd say that might be coming soon, though. (Magic Mike) Shia: We can't start to know that until his next two movies drop (John Hillcoat and Robert Redford movies). Eisenberg: See earlier in the comment comparing him to Cera.
iggy -- good point in the "didn't pan out" crop. That's why i hate it when they hand so many roles to people who don't seem that talented or interesting. They're basically cock-blocking the superb talent from making their first big mark all because they weren't in a franchise movie that made a gazillion dollars before the movies in question.
Yonatan -- all of those guys were mentioned in the piece... though maybe i forgot my Gael. oopsie.
Eisenberg's signed up to be in a freaking Louis Letterier movie
----
He signed on to work with Mark Ruffalo and Morgan Freeman
I'm glad you mentioned Enver Gjokaj in your article. I was really excited about him when he was on Dollhouse. Hope he finds some role to help boost his future prospects.
And speaking of TV actors, do you ever watch Doctor Who? I'm currently in thrall to Matt Smith's performance on that show. He's not really been in any movies yet, but I'd love to see him written about by someone who's not a die-hard Doctor Who fan.
1. I'm really rooting for the obvious Fassy, Gosling, Gordon-Levitt, and Jake Gyllenhaal. I feel like they've proven what they can do, but now we need to see the variations, the projects, and the roles. I really hope that Magic Mike will be a good step in the right direction for Channing Tatum. Maybe I've been clinging to the wrong ticket for a long time, but I still think he's quite amazing in "A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints" Hopefully Soderbergh can really push him to try new choices and be bold.
2. Undervalued...I think Ben Foster really is. He has some great notices under his belt, but they're all over the genre map including a straight drama like The Messenger. Much agreement on the needing to reign in his choices before he get too many The Mechanic-type things, but I like his genre work in 3:10 to Yuma as well. Fingers Crossed. The other undervalued guy to me is Jamie Bell. I like that after child success at Billy Elliott he's taken his time and hasn't felt the need to try to be a leading man before his time. He's done solid supporting work throughout these years (esp. in Defiance and Jane Eyre), but they need to start giving him more things to do.
3. Nathaniel. You should absolutely keep talking about these kinds of stories and ideas. I'm always intrigued by the generations, and I like that you've chosen to push Bale and DiCaprio up because otherwise they do throw a wrench in. In many ways it's the same with Meryl. She was a bit younger than her peers, but she's always associated with that Nicholson, Hoffman, DeNiro, Pacino Keaton group.
Most undervalued: Anthony Mackie.
I am really on Jack's wavelength for the guys I think are going to be great in the future .... I would also add Jamie Bell.
1) Rooting for Fassy, Gosling (seeing Ides tomorrow!!), JGL, and Bell. Is Josh Hutcherson too young for this list? Loved him in Kids are all Right and looking forward to him in The Hunger Games. I did NOT get the rage over Alex Pettyfer at all...thankfully that buzz seems to be fading.
2) Add me to the Lee Pace love list. But selfishly, I love that he does so much Theatre :-) Maybe it's because I am marathoning it, but Breaking Bad's Aaron Paul is BRILLIANT, and I would love to see what he could do on the Big Screen.
3) And yes please...with both Men and Women :-)
1. I'm REALLY interested in this new crop of British talent: Wishaw, Garfield, McAvoy, Thomas Sangster, Samuel Barnett, Jamie Parker, Russel Tovey, Eddie Redmayne. I actually think collectively they sorta represent a new kind of British star, though I'm not entirely sure what kind yet. But there's something interesting about them.
2. Of the biggies, I'd say Fassbender and Gordon-Levitt. I just got on the Gosling train fulol time with Drive, but I have to admit the collective internet orgasm over him is a little tiresome.
3. I definitely think Lee Pace and Anthony Mackie should be on the list. Mackie suffers because he's got a lower-key charisma than Will Smith or Denzel Washington (and reads more intellectual than either of those two, which also hurts), whereas Lee Pace would be a marvel in a great romantic comedy, but Hollywood forgot how to make those.
4. Franco's too wierd to have peaks. Or more accurately, I suspect that what we read as peaks (127 Hours, James Dean), dips (Spider-man) and valleys (the Oscars) read far more closer to him - each experience was worthwhile enough that he'll keep pursuing the unexpected. It may not always be brilliant, but I've never seen an actor so interested in his own persona/celebrity as he seems to be (and in challenging it, I must add).
5. To be honest, Nathaniel, not really. It's not like you ignore them, and it's not like youth is undervalued. If you do go that way, I'd be interested in your thoughts of behind the scenes/writers/directors who are just breaking out moreso than young actresses/actors (which you do anyway).
Love everyone in your top 9, and in answer to question 2 I'd say Groff and Pace. Both should be big stars. But I also want to give a big thumbs-up to Arkaan's #1. Whishaw, Garfield, McAvoy, Sangster - it's an interesting and very talented group.
Maybe because he's been overexposed recently, I'm all Goslung out.
I'm looking forward most to more Garfield (Spidey generally not included). He was so heartbreaking in "Never Let Me Go." Among my favorite books of recent times, I couldn't get into the movie so much (the weird combination of subtle source & too much on some of the filming aspects), but Garfield had me remembering why I liked the movie so much. And he owns "Social Network," I think, by somehow drawing us to him in the least flashy role.
Volvagia, it just occurred to me when I read your comment about Chris Evans- he reminds me a little of Colin Farrell- I think he might be a character actor trapped in a leading man's body (a terrible fate, I think we all agree). I had him down as bland until I saw Sunshine where I thought he stood out and he was great fun in Scott Pilgrim too- he seems way more effective in supporting roles.
I think the English guys have greater chances of longevity because they have additional options of work: Jamie Bell, Ben Whishaw, Tom Hiddleston, etc. And adding Eddie Redmayne, as another poster mentioned.
Of the Americans, JGL will continue to work until his outside matches that of the old soul he played in Third Rock; James Franco will continue to explore, doing things that actually interest him and therefore have a greater potential for also interesting us; Chris Evans, Anthony Mackie, and Ryan Reynolds will continue to slog away and will develop impressive bodies of work.
Undervalued: Jamie Bell, Lee Pace, Anthony Mackie.
C'mon, cast them already: Enver G., Patrick Fugit.
1. The obvious two of Gosling and Fassbender aside, I'm really pulling for Ben Foster to break through; he has this smoldering intensity about him (ie. 3:10 to Yuma, The Messenger) that the right script/director can really break into to help him realize his potential.
2. I'm not sure about undervalued, but I really want to see more of Andrew Garfield; I understand he's on his whole spinning on webs thing for the foreseeable future, which I think is unfortunate as I found his role in The Social Network to be absolutely heartbreaking; it pains me to see him waste some of his formative acting years on standard superhero fare; I have a feeling the rebooted Spiderman movies aren't exactly going to be The Dark Knight-esque.
3. I think the key word isn't young (or younger) but "talent;" individuals with talent should always be at the forefront of conversation, irrespective of age, gender, nationality, etc.
I'd probably knock Hardy off, add James McAvoy, and re-order a bit... but you're top 5 is pretty spot-on. I'm glad you included Ben Foster in your list since I feel he's severely underappreciated.
With that said, I am a bit surprised at your silence on McAvoy. In my opinion, he should've already been Oscar-nominated, probable twice over. And he more than held his own against Fassbender in the more thankless role of Xavier this summer.
Nathaniel likes McAvoy (he gave McAvoy a nod for The Last King of Scotland), and his second comment here says he forgot to list him, but he's top ten.
Arkaan - Thanks. Have NO IDEA how I missed Nat's comment. This is what happens when I read blogs at 2am.
I actually think that Garfueld also has a chance for Back Roads,the book is a heart-wrenching tale of complete tragedy, draws the reader in from the very beginning.And of course,the director is one who directed Glenn Close in Fatal Atraction
and JGL,i love him, I hope he truely is in Lincoln,i hope he can stand out among Day Lewis performance
/3rtful: That's a monumentally stupid reason to not care who's DIRECTING the film. If it was signing up to be working with Ruffalo and Freeman in, say, a Tarantino movie, for example, that would make perfect sense. He's an Oscar nominee. The other actors are Oscar nominees. The director is an Oscar nominee. Louis Leterier did the new Clash of the Titans, the first two Transporter movies and the worse of the two Hulk movies. (Ang Lee's at least had flashes of aesthetic genius. Leterrier delivered a below average action film.) They all chose VERY POORLY, netting this director a much better cast then he ever deserved. (Also: Statham was charming in the two Transporter films. Norton and (especially) Worthington were unusually awkward in their outings with him.) I have unfortunately seen three of his films.
adri: Fugit doesn't really have a mainstream friendly face at all. I mean, his face turned out to be perfect to lead Wristcutters: A Love Story. So, I can't see him being a mainstream lead. Though why his character actor choices haven't gotten bigger is a huge question.
Volvagia give the kid a break. He's making a Woody Allen movie right now. If he wants to make a dumb studio movie because of his co-stars and the pay day he'll get so be it. If he were an actress or a person of color I would agree with you because they're only allowed so many chances. Men (white guys) can fuck up all day long and still end up around.
I did say that none of the actors who are currently in the Leterrier should be in it, but ask yourself this: Does someone who has more savvy competition (Cera admits people confuse him for Eisenberg) genuinely have the ability to take jobs like this? Being identified as "oh yeah, the one of those two similar looking people who made crappy choices" is a punchline, not a career.
I hate seeing good actors become like this. (I willfully admit that both are Cera and Eisenberg are skilled and have their place.) I don't want anyone this skilled to slip into the mire like Dennis Price. (See A Canterbury Tale (yes, the creepy movie about someone sitting in trees and masturbating into the hair of passing women) and Kind Hearts and Coronets to see why his career should be better.) And we should be hard on them, no matter their skin colour or gender.
Being in a studio movie is not the end, it is too early to say it will definitely turn out to be dumb. Why not mention some interesting projects he also attached with like the double, while we're young, they look like very promising projects, also the one he did with Melissa Leo, I can't wait to see he acts along with Melissa Leo, and the woody allen movie, none of them is dumb studio movie.
Also, it is unfair to say he has already peaked just because he got oscar nomination at very early stage of his career, he may not be nominated again, but it doesn't mean he can't bring quality works to screen, if only second oscar nomination can justify his career, then don't even consider my point.