Actors that will make you see anything

S: Who are your 3 favorite actors (we can do actresses another time) that would bring you to a theatre, that lend a real credibility to a project?

At one point you might mention De Niro, Cage or something, but these guys have diluted themselves like crazy. Who makes consistently interesting projects?

My 3 (mostly younger):

1. Christian Bale - I've never seen Little Women, but I like Bale because he's serious about his craft (see weight loss for the Machinist) but not in a Sean Penn overacting kind of way. And I like his diversity, from high profile mainstream like Batman Begins and the Prestige, smaller indie movies like Rescue Dawn and the Machinist, and then pure fun Harsh Times. The guy is all over the map (although often in darker movies, which I also like), is always great, and always interesting to watch. And, he is, of course, the American Psycho.

2. Peter Sarsgaard - Sarsgaard hasn't proven that he can carry a movie by himself (I don't think), but he's got to be the most exciting person to see in a supporting role. Whether it's something silly like his villainous turn in the otherwise forgettable Flightplan or the honorable everyman in the criminally overlooked Shattered Glass, he's always the best thing to watch on screen. But my favorite performance of his is actually Jarhead where I think he's the real heart and soul of that movie. And he brought incredible weight to his portrait of the killer in Boys Don't Cry.

3. Edward Norton - Norton used to be higher on this list when he his first movies were Primal Fear, People vs Larry Flint, Rounders, American History X and Fight Club - seemed like the guy couldn't make a bad movie (although American History X seems kind of silly when I watch it now - still a great performance though). After that he wasted himself in dumb mainstream fare like Red Dragon, the Score, and the remake of the Italian Job. Recently, however, he's bringing himself back by going after passion projects, particularly the very good Painted Vail, but also decent turns in the Illusionist and I hear something worth talking about in Down in the Valley. And he'll always get a pass from me for his powerful performance in 25th hour, my favorite Spike Lee film.

K: Jack Nicholson- yesterday, today and forever. He is completely thrilling on screen. He has been in some of the greatest movies I have ever seen, “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, “Chinatown” and “The Shining” and some of my sentimental favorites like “Terms of Endearment” , “As good as it Gets” and “About Schmidt” Many people’s ‘gripes’ with Mr. Nicholson is that he can only play on character (which isn’t true, “About Schmidt” proves that), and to that I say, “…but that character is awesome”. I rented “Broadcast News” simply because I heard he had a cameo…

Daniel Day Lewis- He is the male Meryl Streep. He takes a simple role and makes in complicated in ways that I don’t entirely understand. He has made two of Scorsese’s lesser movies watch able (“ Age of Innocence” and “Gangs of New York”) and a piece of inadaptable literature- mesmerizing (“Unbearable Lightness of Being”- whatever can be said about that movie, I can’t take my eyes off of him). No matter what film he is in, he creates a very calculated and interesting character and he has never disappointed me.

Kenneth Branagh- He is my comfort food. He would draw me to the theatre not because he is a great actor (he over acts…in almost everything) or because he picks great roles (he even casts himself poorly…see Frankenstein). But for one reason or another I have a love for him despite all this. He is pompous and self obsessed, silly and over ambitious- but, calming. He is one of the filmmakers that made me love film and for that I love watching his stuff. Also, since I bashed him through this whole paragraph, I will say that I think “Dead Again”, “Henry V” and “Much Ado About Nothing” are all very enjoyable, if flawed, films.

I would like to say that Kevin Spacey used to be on this short list with a bang. Poor Kevin Spacey…what has become of you?

Also, did you actually see “Down the Valley” or just hear it was good? Shudder.

I would like to do actresses next; however mine are so obvious that I feel it might bore you….

Mad Men

Spencer: Welcome back to Hamsterdamn Kate. I hope you enjoyed your brief repreive. Let's jump back into the fray post Sopranos with some Sopranos alumni - specifically Matthew Weiner and his new AMC show, Mad Men.

I have to say I was blown away by the first two episodes of this series, partially because I wasn't expecting much from AMC - I think the HBO's and Showtimes of the world have really pushed the other networks to make "edgier", more interesting content - from Mad Men to the FX shows, things are really moving in the right direction.

Some things I like about the show:
- the time period. Not only are they doing a great job with the details, but it's just fun - the constant smoking, the slicked back hair - I love it.
- the performances. Uniformly quite good and as with any good show, with few names and faces that you might recognize.

Some things I am uncertain about:
- the wife. the main character I find fascinating ("who's in there") but I found the second episode slower when they brought the wife in. Misogyny? Perhaps.
- I'm curious to see how they develop the main character - in a lot of ways he needs to be mysterious, empty - American Pyscho-ish without the killing to make the point of the show (something along the lines of "look how shallow and messed up things were back then but oh wait they aren't really that different now are they), but it's difficult to maintain a mystique around a character when he's the driving force of the show. It'll be interesting to see how the performance and character develop.

Your thoughts?

Kate: …and it’s great to be back.
Mad Men is very exciting! Since (as you know) I am not (or I guess I should say that “I have yet to become”) a John from Cincinnati fan, and Entourage is flailing I’ve been a little depressed about television ever since the Sopranos ended. Sometimes you need a new puppy to distract you from the death of your beloved dog.

Is Mad Men my new puppy? I’m not sure, but it has great potential.

Like you, I adore the time period- the 1950s were a fascinating time in terms of economics of the country and also socially. It was the calm before the 1960s storm. It was also the time of “what more could you need?” and when unhappiness was just ridiculous if you had a family and a husband who made a lot of money (in other words, I enjoy the wife’s storyline even if I find the character a little stiff).

Mad Men can go so many places with its story- they have the men in the office (is one of them gay? I see a “Far From Heaven” like story line a brewing) , the main character’s family, the main character’s ‘other woman” which introduces the beatnik movement, race relations, and Peggy’s storyline.

Which brings me to my main issue with Mad Men- Peggy. First of all she is hideous, and second of all I find her irritating. She is my only fear about the show right now- otherwise I love it.

S: Peggy is rather hideous and a bit irritating but I find her interesting. At first, I thought she was to be our heroine - a good girl to root for. We've seen that she's not that, and I was certainly surprised to see her open her door to the swarmy younger ad exec. Again, I'm not sure if the character is not all that well drawn, or if they are really doing something interesting with her - I'm curious to see where she goes.

I'd also like to mention the very Sopranos-esque use of music in the first two episodes, particularly with the slow retreat of the camera in episode 1. And I loved the end of episode 2, which I found a bit more surprising than what they probably thought was a "twist" ending to episode 1 - when did it stop being appropriate for men to check in on their wives therapy because that is so vastly inappropriate, it's almost funny!

K: Well that’s the great thing about Mad Men- just like the Sopranos it has an element of surprise that most shows do not have. It’s something more than the plot twisting and turning- it’s almost a withholding from the characters. There is an element of mystery about them that is so refreshing, rather than the typical pilot antics of: “This is Peggy. She is a goody goody who is afraid of her body”. Peggy makes no sense (birth control? Hitting on her boss? Dressing terribly?), and I know that if she will go in one direction I will hate her, and if she goes in another I will be at least interested in her. I don’t understand the Pete/Peggy thing but it seems so wrong that it could work really well.

But again, she is hideous. There is no need for that. It is so easy to make women from the 50s look beautiful with all the makeup and the synched waists… it’s a travesty.

I’m glad you brought up the husband talking to the psychiatrist thing- I assumed that he had one of his friends from the ad agency be her psychiatrist so that he COULD check up on her. I think the patient doctor privilege was in tact in the 1950s? Perhaps I’m wrong.

I really love their choice of music. They work with the time period while also giving almost an edgy feel.

S: That's a great point - when the characters do become clearer, perhaps we won't be so fascinated.

I think you might be wrong about the psychiatrist - I think the nature of the semi-twist ending was to remind us of how priveleges like those (for women) were pretty much overlooked. Maybe one of our phantom readers can enlighten us to how it was back then? :)