July 10, 2009
-
in response to the responses to yesterday’s post about Johnny Depp and his acting ability (or lackthereof)
redhairedcelt:
“But I’m still going to disagree about the overrated bit. I don’t find the characters he’s played to be the slightest bit uni-dimensional. In fact, quite to the contrary, even when there’s not a lot of character development in the script, there is within him. Jack Sparrow was NOT the swaggering, misunderstood hero type that Disney originally wanted (Errol Flynn on steroids). Willy Wonka was not the Gene Wilder portrayed mystery man. All of his characters have been wildly different from each other, all idiosyncratic, and most definitely multi-dimensional. And not a spot of the true Johnny Depp in there anywhere.”lady_songbird:
“A couple years later, I watched What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, mostly because someone said they thought Leo DiCaprio played a brilliant autistic role. Ok, Leo did good, I admit, but he wasn’t the focus of the movie. It was Gilbert, who could convey a mood with only his eyes, and I was very swept up by the grace in which he handled being trapped in the disaster that was his life. I saw two very completely different performances, and never realized they were the same actor until I read the credits.jdrop:
“He’s perhaps one of the most fantastic character actors ever. He always twists them into these multi-dimensional, likable, realistic people, biopic or not. I love Jack Sparrow, so him notwithstanding, by the end of Blow I was rooting for George Jung, and Edward Scissorhands makes me cry every time. And yes, he is very pretty.”Johnny Depp brings a different persona to every role he plays. There is no spill over from one to the other. There was no hint of Jack Sparrow in James Barry — or any other roll.”
***
lady songbird, actually i mentioned Gilbert Grape as one of two examples in his prolific career when he did in fact play a normal person, and he did it pretty well. but that was a very long time ago and i’m not sure he can pull it off anymore. judging relative to the rest of his career, it might not be inaccurate to call Gilbert Grape a fluke.
and i just don’t see any evidence of depth of feeling or nuance or anything REAL in any of the characters he’s played in the last decade or so. it seems to me that his goal is to just be the most wild, wacky and creepy — all extremes — character he can be. now, don’t get me wrong, he does that very well, but i like to say sometimes “anyone can yell at a camera for two hours”, meaning anyone can turn up the volume and hope that gets mistaken for real emotion. and his brand of acting is a form of yelling even if he never raises his voice.
redhairedcelt, i don’t equate depp changing his characters to him adding depth or dimension to them. for all i know the original script may have had more depth and vulnerability but was washed out by him acting like he does, dumbed the character down.
jdrop, his likeability is not in question here. i love jack sparrow and edward scissorhands. i even liked Ichabod Crane. the question here is Can he play a real flesh and blood human being or not? would he be able to play Jake Lamotta in Raging Bull or even a Randy The Ram in The Wrestler? i am thinking “not a chance”.
will he ever get an oscar? probably one day, since, like i said, he does do his shtick, simple as it is, very well. and i don’t mean simple as in easy i mean simple as in not complex. as a friend of mine likes to say about some other (justifiably) well-known and well-liked actors, “he’s a scene-chewer.” he can’t melt into a scene. he has to be the jack in the box that jumps out and steals your attention.
Comments (4)
what about benny & joon, fear and loathing in las vegas chocolat? i loved edward scissorhands!
I give you James Barrie in Finding Neverland. He pulled it off quite well, and that was recent. He was nominated for an Oscar for that one, and won a golden globe, I believe. His portrayal was spot on, and if you think the dialect was easy, I assure you, even the Scots gave him kudos for pulling that off. I must respectfully disagree.
Depends on how you define changing his characters. Because by not playing the scripted character–which is already uni-dimensional simply because the scriptwriter allows for a certain amount of leeway by the actor–has added dimensions at the get go. The script just contains the words and a minimal amount of direction.
Under Depp, Captain Jack became very layered. Conflicted rascal, motivations muddy but there, his portrayal was very deep and complicated in its buffoonery. There was a lot more than meets the eye to Jack. Same with Willy Wonka. Understanding some of his motivation did come from Tim Burton but yet, Depp chose not to play the typical benevolent candy maker. Willy was edgy, not comfortable with children, idiosyncratic. In short, a lot more depth to that character than previously played. The crooked CIA agent in Once Upon a Time in Mexico was just slimy and raw but there was something innocent in the jaded character. I hadn’t planned on watching that one but I’m glad I did. J. M. Barrie was captured perfectly. When the real Peter says, “no, he’s Peter Pan,” there was such truth in that. That was exactly how Barrie was described by his friends–childlike, innocent. Depp added the adult to that and came up with a wonderful character.
I will agree with one part; in that Sweeney Todd was a bit lacking. But then, I know that play very well, having done it a time or two. And that can’t be blamed on Depp. The character is badly written–catatonic and brooding through most of the play. If anything, Johnny Depp added more dimensions in what he did by allowing emotions and personality to peek through in his eyes or his mannerisms.
So, I’m still going to disagree with your assessment. Respect it; but disagree. I find Mr. Depp to be quite the quintessential actor. I’ve enjoyed his more recent characters far more than his earlier ones. He has nothing to prove to anyone anymore.
Just admit ure jealous of depp.
2 words – Finding Neverland. His subtlety as an actor really shined in that role.