Top 10 Performances in a Nolan Film

[mchekhov]

Nolan cast Hardy because he is a chameleon and is a clever and inventive actor. Not because he thought someone able to play Bronson should be able to play Bane.



I get that the character is stiff. But that's not how he was played. What came across was a stiff actor trying to play cool/smooth.

When you a stiff person in real life they are still nuanced and feel no less real than any other person, right? So why should you see a stiff actor and not a real character who is stiff? Vanity got in the way

Jesus I'm so bored by you talking acting and actors...

i have a solution for you. don't read my posts.

[DHOPW42]

I would've been surprised if instead of you guys fighting with each other through pages there have been only on-topic comments

[Allstar]

Talli by the way that video you posted is so dumb. When he is talking to Joe he is telling him how to fall off the chair. Also later in the vid he is talking to Hardy... he must of been disappointed with him as well lol.

[mchekhov]

Talli by the way that video you posted is so dumb. When he is talking to Joe he is telling him how to fall off the chair. Also later in the vid he is talking to Hardy... he must of been disappointed with him as well lol.

im not saying that he was frustrated because he was giving Joe direction. That's his job as a director. I'm saying I saw a hint of frustration in that facial reaction he did when he walks away

[Allstar]

im not saying that he was frustrated because he was giving Joe direction. That's his job as a director. I'm saying I saw a hint of frustration in that facial reaction he did when he walks away

lol he did not seem frustrated at all. Also you said it was about his "bland" performance. When in reality he was telling him how to fall off the chair differently. Nice try talli you fail again.

[mchekhov]

im not saying that he was frustrated because he was giving Joe direction. That's his job as a director. I'm saying I saw a hint of frustration in that facial reaction he did when he walks away

lol he did not seem frustrated at all. Also you said it was about his "bland" performance. When in reality he was telling him how to fall off the chair differently. Nice try talli you fail again.

he was telling him to not be afraid to act with his face...which if you havent been paying attention is one of the major things people on this forum have been pointing out as a weak trait in his performance. even p.o.g. agreed.

[Minerva]

Wow, this board has a lot of negativity for JGL. Lucky for me, I enjoy a good debate so here I am rushing to his defence (once again...)

Now, I don't believe that he is the greatest actor of my generation but I do believe he has the potential to be something spectacular in the future. And I don't think he was employed in TDKR for his fan base, as arguably actors like Ryan Gosling, James Franco, Andrew Garfield and Shia LaBoeuf all have a similar sized fanbase and have big enough agents to request a meeting with Nolan. Yes, Nolan may have employed JGL again as he has him geared up for some cool action scenes and that's a viable reason for employing someone but I don't think he would employ him again if he thought he was average. He could have just employed a better actor and hired a stunt double instead if he wasn't impressed by him.

In regards to being constrained by vanity, I do see what Talli means about making exciting choices with each role but I am not entirely sure if Nolan wanted Arthur to be approached in anything but a straightlaced fashion. For example, in recent media, you could suggest that Arthur could be played the way Noomi Rapace approached Lisbeth Salander or like Jesse Eisenberg approached Mark Zuckerberg. That JGL could have approached Arthur as having an almost aspergers like quality or as being socially awkward complete with nervous ticks. But don't forget as well as dispensing a lot of information, secondary only to Ariadne in the film, he asks a lot of questions too so in the audiences' eyes, he doesn't know a lot but he still knows a little bit more than us.

I can't remember who the theorist was but I know he based his work on Stuart Hall's work and it mentioned something about characters who are on the same level as the audience having to assume the position of the unassuming//the inoffensive. They have to be the everyman, the kind of person we can relate to, one that we could be friends with. And that's why characters who are cold and closed off and socially awkward are generally the ones who know more than us//are able to create more than us because they are removed from the average guy//gal in the cinema or theatre. And its also why this awkward architype is often employed in most frequently horror//thrillers. I'm not saying there are exeptions to the rule, of course there are but there is a reason why Hardy was given the artist licence to play Eames as James Bond meets John Hurt meets Royal Shakespeare company and why characters like Ariadne, Arthur and Saito (not in limbo) had to play their characters close to the stereotype. I don't think the video Talli posted does show frustration on Nolan's part, I think he is simply offering direction so he can have different close ups to choose from for the final cut. The chair bit such a small section of the film, that if Nolan had an issue with his facial expressions, the chair bit would be the least of his worries as any of the team members could have been slapped around.

as for the stunt work debate! I believe stunt work should be considered a form of acting. Natalie Portman won critical acclaim and a multitude of awards for Black Swan, with particular emphasis on her dancing which is why it was such a huge controversy when Sarah Hall, her stunt double, accused her of only doing 5% of the dancing after she had won the Oscar. Also, wire work hurts! I've done it before and I don't have b*llocks getting in the way so anyone who is suggesting Joseph Gordon Levitt gets too much credit for doing his own stunts is being a bit ignorant of how difficult it is. I'd understand if it was just a case of him being on wires to fall or glide from point A to B but even then, it's taxing on your body. You have to be in tip top shape in order to support yourself over and over again so I can't even begin to imagine how much work was put into keeping his movements looking controlled and effortless in that revolving hallway scene.

I ramble. I know I ramble. I'll try and stop posting epic posts in the future!

Now onto my list:
1. The Joker
2. Walter Finch
3. Alfred Borden
4. Jim Gordon
5. Robert Angier
6. Bruce Wayne//Batman
7. Robert Fischer
8. Harvey 'Two-Face' Dent
9. Leonard Shelby
10. Eames

[Allstar]

I am sure Chris has instructed every actor he was worked with to do a scene differently multiple times. He was clearly satisfied with the performance and did not look the least bit frustrated only in your delusional mind. Oh wait he cast him because he has a huge fan base. Arguably one of the dumbest things you have ever said.

[mchekhov]

Wow, this board has a lot of negativity for JGL. Lucky for me, I enjoy a good debate so here I am rushing to his defence (once again...)

Now, I don't believe that he is the greatest actor of my generation but I do believe he has the potential to be something spectacular in the future. And I don't think he was employed in TDKR for his fan base, as arguably actors like Ryan Gosling, James Franco, Andrew Garfield and Shia LaBoeuf all have a similar sized fanbase and have big enough agents to request a meeting with Nolan. Yes, Nolan may have employed JGL again as he has him geared up for some cool action scenes and that's a viable reason for employing someone but I don't think he would employ him again if he thought he was average. He could have just employed a better actor and hired a stunt double instead if he wasn't impressed by him.

In regards to being constrained by vanity, I do see what Talli means about making exciting choices with each role but I am not entirely sure if Nolan wanted Arthur to be approached in anything but a straightlaced fashion. For example, in recent media, you could suggest that Arthur could be played the way Noomi Rapace approached Lisbeth Salander or like Jesse Eisenberg approached Mark Zuckerberg. That JGL could have approached Arthur as having an almost aspergers like quality or as being socially awkward complete with nervous ticks. But don't forget as well as dispensing a lot of information, secondary only to Ariadne in the film, he asks a lot of questions too so in the audiences' eyes, he doesn't know a lot but he still knows a little bit more than us.

I can't remember who the theorist was but I know he based his work on Stuart Hall's work and it mentioned something about characters who are on the same level as the audience having to assume the position of the unassuming//the inoffensive. They have to be the everyman, the kind of person we can relate to, one that we could be friends with. And that's why characters who are cold and closed off and socially awkward are generally the ones who know more than us//are able to create more than us because they are removed from the average guy//gal in the cinema or theatre. And its also why this awkward architype is often employed in most frequently horror//thrillers. I'm not saying there are exeptions to the rule, of course there are but there is a reason why Hardy was given the artist licence to play Eames as James Bond meets John Hurt meets Royal Shakespeare company and why characters like Ariadne, Arthur and Saito (not in limbo) had to play their characters close to the stereotype. I don't think the video Talli posted does show frustration on Nolan's part, I think he is simply offering direction so he can have different close ups to choose from for the final cut. The chair bit such a small section of the film, that if Nolan had an issue with his facial expressions, the chair bit would be the least of his worries as any of the team members could have been slapped around.

as for the stunt work debate! I believe stunt work should be considered a form of acting. Natalie Portman won critical acclaim and a multitude of awards for Black Swan, with particular emphasis on her dancing which is why it was such a huge controversy when Sarah Hall, her stunt double, accused her of only doing 5% of the dancing after she had won the Oscar. Also, wire work hurts! I've done it before and I don't have b*llocks getting in the way so anyone who is suggesting Joseph Gordon Levitt gets too much credit for doing his own stunts is being a bit ignorant of how difficult it is. I'd understand if it was just a case of him being on wires to fall or glide from point A to B but even then, it's taxing on your body. You have to be in tip top shape in order to support yourself over and over again so I can't even begin to imagine how much work was put into keeping his movements looking controlled and effortless in that revolving hallway scene.

1. If what you're saying JGL was limited by the way he was instructed to play the character, I'm fine with that. But that doesnt change the fact that its not a good acting performance, nor does it explain his bits of stiff acting (i.e. when he comes to Cobb's hotel room in the beginning, or when he interjects saitos and cobb's conversation on the roof). You can argue that his characterization was demanded by Nolan, thats fine, but it doesnt change the fact that its a bad characterization, so somebody has to be at fault in regards to that. The stiff acting can't be explained in anyway.

2. you can't consider stunt work as acting. Natalie Portman may have been giving lots of critical praise for learning the ballet for the film but thats not why she won the oscar. She won it for her emotional intensity. How she played the character. That's what stands out about that performance. Not to mention, she had play emotions WHILE dancing (so you can argue that she was actually acting WHILE dancing), whereas JGL was completely unemotional during his wire work. I liked that shot where he was choking out the projection though.

[Minerva]

1. If what you're saying JGL was limited by the way he was instructed to play the character, I'm fine with that. But that doesnt change the fact that its not a good acting performance, nor does it explain his bits of stiff acting (i.e. when he comes to Cobb's hotel room in the beginning, or when he interjects saitos and cobb's conversation on the roof). You can argue that his characterization was demanded by Nolan, thats fine, but it doesnt change the fact that its a bad characterization, so somebody has to be at fault in regards to that. The stiff acting can't be explained in anyway.
2. you can't consider stunt work as acting. Natalie Portman may have been giving lots of critical praise for learning the ballet for the film but thats not why she won the oscar. She won it for her emotional intensity. How she played the character. That's what stands out about that performance. Not to mention, she had play emotions WHILE dancing (so you can argue that she was actually acting WHILE dancing), whereas JGL was completely unemotional during his wire work. I liked that shot where he was choking out the projection though.

But to state there is a good//bad way of acting suggests that acting is an objective art when it is anything but that. I personally think he performed well in the role. I agree, there were moments where the exposition sounded like exposition (in fact all the actors had this slip up at one point or another in the film with the exception of Tom Hardy) but I think he demonstrated a clear character arc and that he added elements to his performance too that were unaided by the script. (ie: those cutesy looks towards Ariadne, his interactions with Eames, his reaction to Cobb waking up on the plane). I can understand that you don't like his take on things and you are entitled to that opinion but to state that it is 'bad characterisation' because you perceived the performance as stiff doesn't mean that that is the only way people will see things.

Why can I not consider stunt work as acting? In some drama schools, you can learn stage combat, circus skills or dance and isn't stunt work an extention of that? Stunt work is very difficult and takes a lot of dedication to master which is why when an actor does his own stunts, it is always talked about. Natalie Portman was good in Black Swan but if you read up on Black Swan, some of her facial expressions during the dance sequences were put on afterwards through CGI which again causes a furore when it didn't win any notable praise for visual effects during awards season. I agree, she played the role well but if it wasn't highlighted that she spent a year training to be a ballerina (as in the case of Mila Kunis), I think the other actresses in the running for the oscar nominations would have had a better shot at winning that award. I for one was blown away by Michelle Williams' performance in Blue Valentine; everything about that piece was emotion and intense and real. I'm completely divulging away from the topic in hand in regards to Top 10 Nolan Performances so I do apologise but yes, I do believe stunt work is an extention of performance so I choose to recognise it when an actor includes that in their performance.