Michael Fassbender

#27,320
Steven Soderbergh's new film Logan Lucky has inspired film critics to reappraise his career, rank his filmography, and write new appreciations/reviews of old films. Haywire is frequently appearing in the upper half or even the top 10 of many lists, despite getting only mixed-positive reactions and a poor box office when it was first released. Here's a good article with an MF mention:

https://www.theringer.com/movies/2017/8/17/16159484/haywire-steven-soderbergh-action-gina-carano
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hackensack, Caroline-Mathilda, Selayang430 and 1 other person
#27,329
pearlyqueen said:
Curious to know why you think he shouldn't? I wouldn't rule it out.... but obviously he's too old for Hamlet!
Click to expand...

As soon as I posted that, I realized that people would ask for my reasoning, and it would probably not be appreciated. LOL.

Anyway, there are a lot of different skills and talents that are required to be a good actor, but the degree to which you need certain *specific* skills differs between the stage and screen. My personal opinion (and I know some will disagree) is that MF is a great physical actor and good with the microexpressions that register on screen, but his vocal instrument and range is really not his strong suit (he's even occasionally monotone), and that's maybe the most important factor to a stage actor. I know he acted in a few plays, and even got some good reviews for a short stint at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival (or something like that), but I think it's somewhat telling that he didn't get any real *breaks* from a stage career, which is far more typical in the UK/London.

I remember when he did that stage live-read of The Big Lebowski, and the subtext of a few of the formal reviews, and the overt comments of people on Twitter was that he was kind of embarrassingly bad.

And I'm not trying to be insulting here. There are plenty of superb screen actors whose talents do not translate to the stage. Julianne Moore and Jessica Chastain are two of them.
 
#27,330
mollie12 said:
As soon as I posted that, I realized that people would ask for my reasoning, and it would probably not be appreciated. LOL.

Anyway, there are a lot of different skills and talents that are required to be a good actor, but the degree to which you need certain *specific* skills differs between the stage and screen. My personal opinion (and I know some will disagree) is that MF is a great physical actor and good with the microexpressions that register on screen, but his vocal instrument and range is really not his strong suit (he's even occasionally monotone), and that's maybe the most important factor to a stage actor. I know he acted in a few plays, and even got some good reviews for a short stint at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival (or something like that), but I think it's somewhat telling that he didn't get any real *breaks* from a stage career, which is far more typical in the UK/London.

I remember when he did that stage live-read of The Big Lebowski, and the subtext of a few of the formal reviews, and the overt comments of people on Twitter was that he was kind of embarrassingly bad.

And I'm not trying to be insulting here. There are plenty of superb screen actors whose talents do not translate to the stage. Julianne Moore and Jessica Chastain are two of them.
Click to expand...

Without seeing him on stage I'd be hesitant to dismiss his abilities.

We don't know if he actively pursued breaks for stage performances after touring with the Oxford outfit/Edinburgh Festival; I suspect he purposely gravitated towards cinema (via TV) as that was his personal ambition. But who's to say that hasn't changed? I get the impression he's a bit jaded by cinema after 10 years of it and in looking for new challenges theatre might attract him. Time will tell..
 
  • Like
Reactions: readingnook
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Back