Greatest actor of the 20th century

[Lincoln Republican]

Please vote and discuss.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I’ll have to think about it, but while Stewart is up there - though not versatile enough to be the best - Cary Grant isn’t even in the top 50 imo.  I’d argue Grant never gave a single truly great performance.

[brucejoel99]

I have a hard time seeing how anybody could argue that it's anybody but Marlon Brando.

[Santander]

I’ll have to think about it, but while Stewart is up there - though not versatile enough to be the best - Cary Grant isn’t even in the top 50 imo.  I’d argue Grant never gave a single truly great performance.

If you measure greatness in terms of cultural impact, Cary Grant might be #1.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Voted for Jimmy Stewart. I feel like there's probably somebody even better, but I'm not sure who specifically comes to mind. (I've never been hugely into Brando, although I recognize his talent.)

[Santander]

Anyway, Paul Newman for me.

Dustin Hoffman, Robert De Niro, Alec Guinness, Steve McQueen are also contenders.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Robert De Niro. Unlike most of his peers he tried comedy and was pretty damn good at it.

[Mr. Smith]

That one British dude that spent a long time as a french detective before stumbling upon a chance as a gardener!

Orson Welles,  James Dean, Ian Richardson, and Christopher Lee come quite close though.

[Beet]

Voted other, but on reconsideration, it is Jimmy Stewart.

[dead0man]

Robert De Niro. Unlike most of his peers he tried comedy and was pretty damn good at it.

not when it's live and he's super old

[Landslide Lyndon]

Robert De Niro. Unlike most of his peers he tried comedy and was pretty damn good at it.

not when it's live and he's super old

What is that supposed to mean?

[dead0man]

Robert De Niro. Unlike most of his peers he tried comedy and was pretty damn good at it.

not when it's live and he's super old

What is that supposed to mean?

he's horrible on SNL, embarrassing really

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I have a hard time seeing how anybody could argue that it's anybody but Marlon Brando.

Brando only has merit if you think method acting is the best way to act. Personally, I always found him a scenery-chewing ham. Nuance was never a part of any role I saw him in.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Robert De Niro. Unlike most of his peers he tried comedy and was pretty damn good at it.

not when it's live and he's super old

What is that supposed to mean?

he's horrible on SNL, embarrassing really

Who cares? We are talking about movies here.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Probably Robert De Niro.  Now the greatest actor of the 21st century thus far is almost certainly Christian Bale.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In addition to De Niro Jack Nicholson seems like a pretty logical pick for this. For the 21st century: Leonardo DiCaprio.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

In addition to De Niro Jack Nicholson seems like a pretty logical pick for this. For the 21st century: Leonardo DiCaprio.

DiCaprio is another contender for 21st century (probably the runner up imo, but reasonable minds can certainly disagree.

[brucejoel99]

I have a hard time seeing how anybody could argue that it's anybody but Marlon Brando.

Brando only has merit if you think method acting is the best way to act. Personally, I always found him a scenery-chewing ham. Nuance was never a part of any role I saw him in.

I'm afraid that I have to vehemently disagree with your characterizations.

Basically, there's Brando & then there's everybody else. It's as simple as that. The line between the more staged, trans-Atlantic accent, overwrought acting of the period before him & the grounded, flawed, inward-looking acting that continues after him is because of him. He was, by acclamation, the best student to come out of the best period of the best school & his influence is felt today. The best example I can think of is A Streetcar Named Desire, in which he seemed realistic while the rest of the movie felt old-fashioned. I can't stress how truly timeless his performances are.

Anything you could ever hope to want from an actor, he showed how to do it best. His improvisation is more than spontaneous & creative; it's revealing. His line delivery is more than authentic & natural; it gives life to lines & insight to characters that nobody else can capture (look at Alec Baldwin's Stanley Kowalski for a very good performance that nonetheless highlights just how much better Brando's was). His physicality & movement are so evocative that he almost doesn't need lines. He says more in a look than most actors can say in a monologue. He's the reason that method acting became such a big deal. Everybody wanted to know how he managed to not just perform his characters, but seemed to become them. The 10,000 foot view of the method is that actors don't act; they become. People get lost in the surface sheen of that, focusing on the rigors of preparation, the massive weight swings, the outlandish attempts to experience the character's back story, & the insistence on remaining in character so deeply that it's as if their true selves are lost. But that misses the point. What they miss is that all the technique in the world means nothing without talent, insight, empathy, & creativity. And on those points, there's Brando & then there's everybody else.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Write-in: Marlon Brando.

Jimmy Stewart was a likable leading man, but he really wasn't a stellar actor.

I'm not familiar enough with Cary Grant, honestly, to weigh in on him.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This sort of thing is very difficult because so much comes down to subjective preference, because different forms produce (and require, even) different techniques (what is appropriate for film is not always appropriate for television drama, let alone for stage; and vice versa), and because often we end up acting as if only English-speaking actors matter. Worse, because theatre is live and therefore lost, there is a tendency to think of it as an afterthought.

Still, if there is a correct answer then it would have to be Alec Guinness. A complete master of all forms (stage, film, television), capable of the most extraordinary range, capable of the most sublime subtlety, capable of the most extraordinary emotional intensity, never reliant on simply one attribute (face, voice, body) to the exclusion of others, and never, not once, not ever, mired in technique: there is a unique and very strange sense of freedom to his performances that is simply glorious to behold; one that places him beyond and above the competition.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I had a good feeling Al would say Sir Alec Guinness.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I have a hard time seeing how anybody could argue that it's anybody but Marlon Brando.

Brando only has merit if you think method acting is the best way to act. Personally, I always found him a scenery-chewing ham. Nuance was never a part of any role I saw him in.

I'm afraid that I have to vehemently disagree with your characterizations.

If you want a self-loathing brute to play a self-loathing brute, he's not terrible, which is what made Stanley such a perfect role for him.

[ricardotor]

carry grant you re not the only one.

[Mr. Smith]

I repeat: Peter. Sellers.

No one else could take on so many roles in one movie, improvise, and figure how to do hammy scene-chewers alongside subdued roles like him, oh and when he took on accent, he nailed it.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Eddie Murphy, put together Coming 2 America; consequently, putting together, the plight of middle class blacks with the working poor, in the middle of the Bronx. Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and Married with Children and Cosby Show, assembled same themes.

Looking forward to its sequel in 8/7/20