Screen Robot
  • Movie News
  • TV News
  • Gaming
    • Xbox Games
  • Streaming
    • Netflix
    • Amazon Prime
    • Now TV
    • Disney Plus
  • Trailers
  • Screen News
  • Login
No Result
View All Result
Screen Robot
  • Movie News
  • TV News
  • Gaming
    • Xbox Games
  • Streaming
    • Netflix
    • Amazon Prime
    • Now TV
    • Disney Plus
  • Trailers
  • Screen News
No Result
View All Result
Screen Robot
No Result
View All Result

Where have all the ‘normal’ leading men gone?

Taylor Burns by Taylor Burns
8th June 2014
in Movie News
31 0
0
Where have all the ‘normal’ leading men gone?
60
SHARES
240
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

With our current obsession with the ‘beautiful’ leading man, 70s heavyweights like Hackman, Nicholson and Pacino wouldn’t stand a chance.

The 70s were to cinema what the 60s were to music: a period of immense artistic merit and innovation unsurpassed by any decade since. There’s a strong claim to be made after last year’s array of great films, though, that the 2010s are doing their very best to at least emulate some of the 70s’ success. If not in terms of sheer influence and importance, then definitely in terms of the overall quality of some of this decade’s finest films.

The likes of Cumberbatch and Fassbender are fine actors, their looks part of the package. But what about the ordinary man?

If there’s a marked difference between that decade and this one, however, it is the metamorphosis of The Leading Man, and how today’s stars are, quite simply put, better looking. In this age of vanity, the cinema – as it has in every decade other than the 70s – stands as a benchmark of aesthetic value for the modern man. Whether it’s the utterly gorgeous English perfection of a Benedict Cumberbatch – all middle-class-white-prim-and-proper – or the dashing allure of a Michael Fassbender – all devastating eyes and cheekbone, with a hushed Irish accent that could be registered as a lethal weapon to women everywhere – cinema’s prime actors of the decade are, for lack of a more original word, beautiful.

This is by no means a bad thing: film is built on a history of smouldering leading men (Brando, Dean, Beatty, Newman, McQueen, Redford etc), and the current crop only serve to carry on the tradition. Furthermore, the likes of Cumberbatch, Fassbender and co (Gosling, Cooper, McConaughey, Hardy et al) are all fine actors in their own right, thus ensuring that their looks are only part of the package. (In contrast to, say, a Taylor Lautner, whose beautiful veil reveals a shining shit when lifted.) This is all well and good, but what about the ordinary man?

godfather duvall pacino

The 70s had perhaps the greatest bench of acting talent in film history, but if you look at that bench, the men sitting on it – though not necessarily unattractive – all look rather normal. Odd, even. There’s De Niro, whip-cord thin, gaunt and pale, handsome in the weirdest way possible but with danger behind his tracing eyes; there’s Pacino, gloriously haired but a little short, a little lost-looking, a little unkempt and wild; there’s Robert Duvall, a man bald as a coot since birth but still getting top billing; and there’s Jack Nicholson, he too balding and short, his famed eyebrows lifting, his malevolent grin ensuring that trouble is always close as he becomes perhaps the star of the decade (bedding close to a thousand women in the process, I might add).

De Niro, Pacino, Duvall, Nicholson – these guys would be relegated to character actor territory today, in the same way that Paul Giamatti or Ben Mendelsohn now are

These guys would be relegated to character actor territory today, in the same way that Paul Giamatti or Ben Mendelsohn are. It’s a sign of the times that some of the best actors working will never helm a big, mainstream picture on account of their protruding bellies or balding heads or dangerous looks. Hell, even the late, great Philip Seymour Hoffman – a character actor who seemed to appeal to even the most mainstream of fans – never really got top billing until late in his career, and even then it was in the likes of Capote and The Master, films rooted in arthouse sensibilities.

The key word here has already been mentioned: danger. Today’s crop certainly play some dangerous characters – Fassbender, Gosling and Hardy especially – but off-screen they all seem very nice, the type of men, who, despite the abs and jawlines and biceps to signal it, would never really go for violence. They look like all a bit of bark without the bite, like they’d much rather stay in with the missus before meeting her parents, who would remark at what a strong, handsome, nice, well-mannered boy their daughter had brought home.

Read more on De Niro: We love his 70s cycle

the place beyond the pines gosling is ripped

Wedding bells would toll. It would all be kind of, well, perfect. There’s even a WASP element to all of this (though one must be careful when using that term), as if these tall specimens of the middle class were destined to rule over cinema. (Note here: I’m not necessarily saying that all of the mentioned actors are of a WASP background, but rather that they all at least pertain to some element of it.)

There are actors – Michael Shannon the prime example – who still offer that danger. It’s just that they’re hiding in the shadows

But again, there’s De Niro and Pacino, steeped to an extent in the catholic guilt they would channel into their performances, giving mumbling interviews, all mood and atmosphere; there’s Jack, tripping on LSD with Dennis Hopper; there’s Gene Hackman, the antithesis to the current model of the Leading Man, ordering another whiskey at the bar. These were dangerous men, and cinema was rewarded for risking them – these were ordinary men in the most extraordinary way. Of course, that isn’t to say that the cinema is suffering for a lack of these sorts, and there are actors out there – Michael Shannon being the prime example – who still offer that danger, that element of fucked-up-ness. It’s just that they’re hiding, rather fittingly, in the shadows.

 

Read more on Pacino: We love his 70s cycle

 

Featured image: 20th Century Fox

Inset images: Paramount; Focus Features

Tags: ActorsAl PacinofilmRyan Gosling
Previous Post

Anime is struggling to go global again, but one thing might save it

Next Post

After Game of Thrones: 4 slightly trashy TV shows to fill the gap

Next Post

After Game of Thrones: 4 slightly trashy TV shows to fill the gap

Please login to join discussion

KNICKER SNIFFERThe ultimate prank by post

Readers Favourites

Screen Robot Filmcast #4: Bad Neighbours, Blue Ruin and Frank

Review of the Year 2014: Blue Ruin

16th December 2014
155

If You’re Nervous About Your First Time Traveling, Read This

11th July 2017
147
Circling the drain: The waning imagination of the blockbuster

Circling the drain: The waning imagination of the blockbuster

23rd June 2014
211
Screen Robot Filmcast #11: Transformers 4, Boyhood and Begin Again

Screen Robot Filmcast #11: Transformers 4, Boyhood and Begin Again

14th July 2014
132
Syfy Drops New Tremors Series – But here’s the Trailer

Syfy Drops New Tremors Series – But here’s the Trailer

4th May 2018
226
  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Menu
  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions

Copyright © 2020 screenrobot.com

No Result
View All Result
  • Movie News
  • TV News
  • Gaming
    • Xbox Games
  • Streaming
    • Netflix
    • Amazon Prime
    • Now TV
    • Disney Plus
  • Trailers
  • Screen News

© 2020 Screen Robot

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this website you are giving consent to cookies being used. Visit our Privacy and Cookie Policy.