Brando was nowhere near the greatest

This message has been deleted by an administrator

ROFL!!!!!!!! tom hanks are you kidding me? tom hanks had one good role his whole career which was forest gump .DDL is a fuqing stick figure when he acts hes a good actor thats justs where it stops for him .brando was both a star and a excellent actor something day lewis isnt do your research before you compare others to brando this is the current issue with all these brando comparisons none of them measure up to his level.find someone who is on that level first then make your comparisons.

Humankind cannot bear very much reality

Cast away
Road to Perdition
Captain Phillips
Forrest Gump
Apollo 13

Lincoln
There Will be Blood
Gangs of New York
The Crucible
In the Name of the Father
My Left Foot

All better performances than any Brando.

Go ahead, point out Brandos greatest moments.

tom hanks makes good movies im a fan but he's not on brando's level

Humankind cannot bear very much reality

You are right, he's way above Brando's level.

Please, elaborate on the perfomances that make Brando "the best". I would love to hear about these unbelievable acting performances that the likes of triple oscar winners can't get near.

Daniel Day-Lewis is an excellent actor; but Brando's reputation rests not only on his talent as such, but also on the fact that he was an innovator. By the time Day-Lewis was born, Brando had done several film performances generally praised as some of the all-time best (Kowalski in "Streetcar," Marc Anthony in "Caesar," Terry in "Waterfront"). A good case could be made that, without Brando, actors of later generations wouldn't be quite what they are today (Day-Lewis included). Great acting did exist before Brando, of course, but Brando brought a level of naturalism to his performances which very arguably had not been seen in Hollywood up to that point (Montgomery Clift being a possible exception).

Good point, especially about Clift. It's commonly thought the 'east coast theater naturalism' came west the same time as Kazan, etc. Which is somewhat true, but Clifts work in 'Red River' is still stunning. Kazan hired the first 'New York Actors Studio' guy in Hollywood, John Garfield, for a pivotal role in "Gentleman's Agreement".

But I'm digressing left and right. Brando was brilliant. Anyone who says otherwise either, A) just doesn't like something about his voice, looks, mannerisms, etc, or B) doesn't know much about how Hollywood acting progressed from the 20's through the 70's.

Brando was also lucky with his timing. The Studio system was starting to shift towards more independent visionary stuff, as opposed to factory style 'potboilers' which occasionally resonated as a classic ("Casablanca" being an example). Welles had come, been dismissed, yet been heard by the new creative eyes out west. Hollywood was changing. At the time, the theater in NY was peaking in terms of poetic drama. Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams to name two. Interestingly enough, almost as a contradiction, actors were using 'realism' while reciting Williams poetry. When Kazan was asked to film "Streetcar", that rare thing happened: The NY play was better than the script, and when Kazan filmed it? The film nailed the play.

And Brando was the guy. His run in the 50's was quite good. The whole film industry was undergoing radical change, and Brando was the 'face' of it.

Some of it hasn't aged well. "Viva Zapata!", if you were reading a critique written before 1980, was considered a great film. Now? Eh. It's OK from a "Hollywood Historical" perspective, meaning 'history of Hollywood' in the 1950's. But Brando's performance, in 1952, was considered quite good. "Julius Ceasar". "Tea House" was his attempt to 'break typecast' as serious, and falls today. "Sayanara", "Young Lions", were guilty of those slow dramatic scripts of the 50's, but he was good. I love him in "One Eyed Jacks", I actually enjoy his fop in "Mutiny", although the entire film is simply too long.

A fairly 'under the radar' great performance by Brando is "Burn!!", a late 60's Italian film.

The 70's speak for themselves.

To the point of Day Lewis, etc, modern actors. Well, certainly Brando's little 'ad lib' with Edie's glove in "Waterfront" has been done to death since, in many ways by many great actors. It's called progress. It's probably why Marlon stagnated in the 60's. Other people were catching up, and he lost interest.

But here's the thing. I'll use a car analogy: a 1963 Corvette is so stunning, was so cool, was so hot in 1963? It really set a standard. The Stingray continued to improve for years, the car is iconic in the US, probably other places too.

Hindsight being what it is, when the Vette went away from the Stingray, it sort of dropped a notch for people who weren't vette 'aficionados'. But? I'll guarantee you, that the 1995 Vette would outperform a 1963 by every performance measure around in 1995.

Which doesn't take anything away from the brilliance of a 1963 Corvette.

Which was more stunning in it's time?

Brando was stunning in the early 1950's.

"Sayanara", "Young Lions", were guilty of those slow dramatic scripts of the 50's, but he was good."

He was utterly dreadful in Young Lions while everyone around him was good. What killed it for me is a dialogue scene with Barbara Rush where she looks directly into his eyes while he looks over the top of her head clearly reading cue cards 😱 I actually enjoyed that film - Clift and Barbara were excellent.

I'll have to deconstruct this argument:

"But here's the thing. I'll use a car analogy: a 1963 Corvette is so stunning, was so cool, was so hot in 1963? It really set a standard. The Stingray continued to improve for years, the car is iconic in the US, probably other places too.

Hindsight being what it is, when the Vette went away from the Stingray, it sort of dropped a notch for people who weren't vette 'aficionados'. But? I'll guarantee you, that the 1995 Vette would outperform a 1963 by every performance measure around in 1995.

Which doesn't take anything away from the brilliance of a 1963 Corvette.

Which was more stunning in it's time?

Brando was stunning in the early 1950's."

The reason being is that the true greats in any art form are by definition timeless. When I read Jane Eyre, I was struck by how modern it felt at its core. Sure, I needed to get used to a different language structure and know a bit about socio-economic conditions of the time, but I had no trouble understanding it and connecting to it emotionally. I did not need to give it any concessions for being a product of its time. It is simply a great book without 'ifs' and 'buts'.

If Brando needs to be viewed through the prism of his time to appreciate, then he does not deserve to be called 'great', let alone 'greatest'. Perhaps 'historically important' or 'innovative' or 'great for his time'.

Real greatness does not age beyond the superficial.