What's new

Has EDWARD NORTON failed to live up to his late '90's promise...? (1 Viewer)

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,926
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Still, while the buzz you talk about does point out some great performances which would have gone less noticed, it still misses about 98% of those which deserve it. If there isn't an additional catch to make it "news worthy", it gets ignored. Norton was the hot new talent. Now he's old news. So unless his movies bring in a ton of money or hit on some other meaningless reason for coverage he will probably continue to be the subject of more has he "failed to live up to his promise" types of discussions.
 

Jeff

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
949

Read the original post again. The point of this thread is what he has been doing (or not doing) from 2000 and up.
 

buttmunker

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
329
Real Name
Mike

I'm a firm believer that it is part of an actor's job to make sure their performances receive the necessary buzz in order to build themselves a legacy. And trust me, JohnRice, without the buzz, there's nothing. I'll give you an example.

Take Jack Nicholson. He didn't get the luck Edward Norton had when he started in the business - took him about 10 years to finally have a breakthrough, but when he did, Nicholson made damn sure he continued to bank on that breakthrough, and that's why he's who he is today.

You take someone like me: born in 1970, attempting to explore the films of my past by the time I reach my teen years. I'm not going to just randomly pick old films from the '70's to watch - my method: check out who was nominated for an Academy Award. So now that I have my reference guide, I seek out Five Easy Pieces, Chinatown, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Easy Rider, and The Last Detail for Nicholson films.

Same can be said for Al Pacino flicks. And, in 20 years, the same will go for Edward Norton flicks. The unknowing will go for the films that got Oscar's attention before they go for any other.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,926
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
I profoundly disagree. A celebrity needs to make sure they garner the buzz. An actor acts and lets the performance stand on its own. Now, there is crossover. Nicholson is not only a great actor, but also a big time celebrity. I think it is seriously wrong to require all actors to be celebrities in order to be taken seriously as actors. "Without the buzz there is nothing"? You didn't really say that did you? The performance, the art itself is nothing if it doesn't end up on Entertainment Tonight or get an Oscar nod? I will never agree with that in any way. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand what you are saying, I just totally, completely disagree. If someone creates something great, it is great whether or not it receives "buzz".
 

buttmunker

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
329
Real Name
Mike
Something may be great without the buzz, of course you're right. I'm just saying that an actor and his work stands more of a chance at achieving longevity if they have it.

Take Fast Times At Ridgemont High. No Oscar-nods for the actors, or for the picture. Yet it is famous in its own right because it is a great picture. If that's the point you're making, then I agree with you. But not every picture is Fast Times, and not every actor is Sean Penn, who established a terrific career before Oscar ever even bothered glancing in his direction.

But it helps. The buzz helps. Buzz does not necessarily equal Oscar-nomination, but it could, that's the point I was making. But buzz is buzz, and Sean Penn had plenty of it from his get-go in 1982. Sean Penn never really stepped out of the box when it came to making great pictures (you can blame Madonna for Shanghai Surprise, alright?).

I feel Edward Norton stepped out of the box on several occasions, and fairly early in his career. What's the difference between Norton's work after his four years of great and Sean Penn's work four years after "Ridgemont High?" Penn banged out of the starting gate right after "Ridgemont High" with Bad Boys, Falcon and the Snowman, and At Close Range...then slowed it down with some experimental pieces and perhaps some personal pieces, but then got down to business in the 90's with what we know as Penn's great films (Carlito's Way, Dead Man Walking, and Sweet and Lowdown, to name a few).

Maybe I'm pouncing too quickly on Edward Norton. It is, after all, just 2007, and could be that some of his best work is ahead of him, and he's right now in the period that Sean Penn was in between 1986 and 1993 - for every decent film, a forgettable film.

Time will tell.
 

DavidPla

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
2,357

Nicholson is an anomaly. I mean, at 70 he can still keep his artistic integrity AND keep drawing audiences to come and pay to see him. He is super smart with his career choices. He is one of the few actors who knows how to transcend each generation and be fresh every decade. His last three films (Anger Management, Something's Gotta Give and The Departed) all made more than 100 million at the Box Office.
 

Nathan V

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 16, 2002
Messages
960
Norton's output is really high though. He had 3 films in release last year, and has averaged 2 a year for about a decade. All of those films have either been very interesting or very great.

And no, it is not an actor's job to generate buzz. That's the job of the marketing department. Of course, it is certainly wise for an actor to do so, especially when the film has no marketing muscle behind it. Notice how hard Norton has hustled this year, doing interviews left, right, and center, for each of his 3 releases. Same thing with Ruffalo for Zodiac. BUT, the actor's job is to deliver a great performance, and nothing else.

As for Norton himself, he is remarkably clear-headed when he speaks about his career choices. Check out this 2007 interview, which is by far the most in-depth stuff from the man in some time:

Part One: http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview...016615,00.html
Part Two: http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview...016616,00.html

Regards,
Nathan
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,926
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Mike, you are spinning. First you say "without Buzz there is nothing" and now you say "buzz helps". You also seem to be equating Oscars with greatness and lack of Oscars as lack of greatness. The Oscars are an extremely topical measurement. Many winners are soon forgotten while often losers, or those who aren't even nominated, are revered for years. Paul Newman had already given his greatest performances when he finally received one for a decidedly second tier role. Ennio Morricone, arguably the greatest film composer of all time, only just received an honorary Oscar this year after repeatedly losing to much lesser nominations. He's still better than virtually everyone he lost to through the years. He just didn't have the "buzz".

Your choice of Fast Times as a great movie is an interesting one. There are at least 3 future Oscar winners in that movie, but it took a hell of a long time for them to receive them. Jennifer Jason Leigh has never won, and may never win, but she can act rings around Hilary Swank, who has 2.
 

Ocean Phoenix

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
591

Of all the movies you could single out as an example of a great movie that never got any Oscar nominations, you pick Fast Times At Ridgemont High? That's ridiculous. This is a movie that is loved mostly out of nostalgia. It is actually quite a poor and ugly movie if you take a close look at it. It's only a "teen high school" movie, and in that typically slight genre of movies, it's not even close to being the best one.

It's probably one of the first ones to become really famous and historically significant in pop culture, but it's no masterpiece. It has a few very funny memorable scenes (pool scene, convenience store robbery) and some great performances (Sean Penn, Jennifer Jason Leigh), but that's all. The director, Amy Heckerling, made a much better movie later with "Clueless", and it's the worst of the movies I've seen written by Cameron Crowe, whose "Say Anything" and "Almost Famous" are in another league entirely.
 

buttmunker

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
329
Real Name
Mike

You might misunderstand, but both terms mean the same = buzz is important. "Without buzz there is nothing," which means that lack of buzz is bad. "Buzz helps" means the same thing. Buzz is what keeps the layman in the loop to what's good in film. I'm not saying that an actor has to have the Entertainment Tonight spotlight on them constantly. Frankly, that's overkill. There's such a thing as "too much buzz," and you can get sick of somebody (Jennifer Aniston is a good example - I don't even know why she's a source of news on magazine covers and such, cause she's, at best, a medocre actress).

Nicholson did films in the 70's that were very entertaining, and he had good directors and screenwriters to support Nicholson's platform.

Norton's films are sometimes off the beaten path, and not everybody's cup of tea. I don't think Norton is making the best of what he started out with, and I think he's losing the big audience he once had. He lost me, for sure, because I'm not interested in "art films." I'm interested in drama. I'm interested in a man with problems, issues I can relate to. Films like The Painted Veil are not for me. The Score is superficial, and not for me. Is he acting just to please me? He used to.

If Edward Norton's first film had been Everybody Says I Love You, do you think anybody would give a crap about him? If he never did Primal Fear or American History X, would anybody give a crap about him?

The answer is probably no.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,926
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Good point. It's kind of like one of those crappy Top 40 songs from the 70s some of us remember fondly because of the nostalgia, not because it is great. Now, before anyone jumps on me, there was a lot of great music in the 70s, I'm just making a point.

Mike, you use a lot of hyperbole, which I tend to have problems with. "Buzz is important" and "without buzz, you have nothing" are not the same thing and do not say the same thing. Singling out Fast Times as a great movie is also a good example. I just think too many people confuse media with skill and never bother to seek out skill themselves. After all, if buzz where that important, right now, the greatest actress to have ever lived would be Anna Nicole Smith.

You will never see people like Tom Wilkinson or Celia Weston (for example) in the media, or getting much buzz at all, but they can act rings around Halle Berry or Tom Cruise. Remember the outrage when Daniel Craig was chosen as Bond? "Who the hell is this guy?" Now he's being praised as the best Bond ever.
 

buttmunker

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
329
Real Name
Mike

I'm glad you mentioned Tom Wilkinson. Call me a back woods person, but I only came to know him due to the Oscar nomination he got for In The Bedroom. This is what I mean by "the buzz" helping getting attention. Without it, I never would have known about him or the movie. I'm not an avid Sissy Spacek fan, so her name would not have been enough for me to want to see In The Bedroom, but because of all the buzz about Wilkinson's (and Spacek's) performances - and the subsequent Oscar nomination - I went and saw the movie.

There's nothing wrong with buzz, in that context. Its the over-exposure bullshit (like Anna Nicole Smith) that I have a problem with.

And for those people who think Fast Times At Ridgemont High is just another high school nostalgia trip, I beg to differ. This movie had some real feeling to it - Damone trying to raise money for an abortion; Brad being a friend to his sister. It was more than what you guys refer to it as, and that's why the film has endured. It had heart.

Anyway, the thing with Edward Norton is that I really, really like the guy. The Italian Job was on TV last night, and I saw parts of it - the scenes with Norton are terrific. His expressions, how he carries himself - he outshined Mark Wahlberg, and although I don't know what kind of character Norton played (I assume it was a bad guy), I felt bad at the end when apparently Norton's character was going to have his life ended by torture. The way Norton looked at the guy telling him that he wasn't going to shoot him (Norton). Norton looked at the guy with what was actual hope.

That's talent, and that's why I want Norton in more straight dramas. He's amazing!
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
You have an odd notion of what constitutes "drama". The Italian Job was a Hollywood genre picture populated by two-dimensional formulaic characters (and I say this as someone who's a fan of the picture). The Painted Veil is much more of what most people would consider a "drama", in that it portrays three-dimensional characters with complex emotions and doesn't lead to a happily-ever-after ending.

Do you really find it easier to "relate to" the problems and issues of a thief and cold-blooded killer than those of a man who has to rebuild his marriage after discovering that his wife has been unfaithful?

Having started this thread by accusing Norton of selling out, you now seem to be saying that what you want from him is more Hollywood big-budget genre work -- i.e., more of the "sell-out" stuff.

BTW, which of the other films in your initial list, besides 25th Hour, haven't you seen?

M.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,926
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
I've grown tired of pointing out the contradictions in the OP's posts, but sure would like to see Michael Reuben continue with it. ;)

Comments like "I only came to know him due to the Oscar nomination he got for In The Bedroom" seem to indicate media attention and noms are the only way to discover talent. It's simply not the case. If you want to be spoon fed, you'll get a lot of value meals.
 

Patrick Sun

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1999
Messages
39,660
[sarcasm]That Cuba Gooding, Jr. sure did live up to his 90's promise as an Oscar winnah![/sarcasm]
 

Nathan V

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 16, 2002
Messages
960
It SEEMS like Norton isn't as high profile as he once was, but let's not forget this: Good films can take time to materialize in the public's mind. Let's not forget that no one went and saw Fight Club or Rounders or Primal Fear in theatres, and nobody saw American History X. Now, everybody's seen those. Conversely, everyone saw Red Dragon and The Italian Job, which nobody's going to be talking about in 5 years.

Likewise, in 5 years people will actually start getting around to the stuff that's coming out now. I call it the Michael Mann syndrome- long term respect by the public, derived from high-quality product that seeps into the delayed reaction of the people. Nobody saw Down in the Valley, but I guarantee word of mouth will perpetuate, slowly but surely, over the years. The movie is simply too good, unique and plain weird to not be. Just because a movie doesn't get widespread recognition doesn't mean it sucks. We all know that.

In the bigger scheme of film, I can't believe we're discussing Ed Norton falling off, or "wishing he would be in more straight dramas." Hell, 99.9% of everything Norton does is straight drama.

Let's start talking about oscar winners Ben "Thunderbirds" Kingsley, Halle "Catwoman" Berry, Charlize Theron, Marisa Tomei, and of course, the one, the only, the great Cuba "Boat Trip" Gooding Jr. There's a body who needs to fire his agent, doubletime.

Great discussion. This is whay I love HTF; we have real discussions, like this one, instead of some crap like "best movie ass-kickings" or "3 worst cameron diaz movies" etc.

Regards,
Nathan
 

Ryan L. Bisasky

Second Unit
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
398
I'll keep the Down in the Valley love going. Hell, I didn't recignize Norton when he first appeared on screen. I actually rented the movie for 2 reasons, buzz (i think ew gave the movie an A- and Evan Rachel Wood). This is a terrific and somewhat touching movie (the last 20 minutes)
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,926
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Nathan V, now don't be jumping on the Marisa Tomei bashing bandwagon. The truth is, she spends most of her time on stage. A world of acting most of us pretend doesn't exist. Maybe Michael can back me up on this. Plus, she has been in some fine films, such as Welcome to Sarajevo and In the Bedroom, arguably one of the best films made so far this decade. Yeah, she's done fluff too, but I guess that's just life.


I really need to watch Down in the Valley again. That was one weird story.
 

buttmunker

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
329
Real Name
Mike

What's weird is that, at K-Mart, I saw Down in the Valley in the 9.99 bargain bin, and any film in there I associate with being "a dud." That's why I panned it sight unseen.

I'm going to rent it from Netflix, as well as The Painted Veil.
 

buttmunker

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
329
Real Name
Mike

Nearly all of them.

The Score (2001)
Death to Smoochy (2002)
Frida (2002)
25th Hour (2002)
The Italian Job (2003)
Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
Down In The Valley (2005)
The Illusionist (2006)
The Painted Veil (2006)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,842
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top