Features
Headlines
Search
Archives
It has been more than 30 years since Al Pacino gave his career-defining performance as cold blooded Michael Corleone in “The Godfather Part II.” He radiated quiet danger the moment he appeared on screen without ever raising his voice or allowing his mouth to wrap its way around words and spit them out like venom.
While a one-two punch of “88 Minutes” and “Righteous Kill” slithers its way to theaters this year, audiences are reminded once again that one of the cinema’s all-time legends has immersed himself once again in either sub-par material or, as has become his cliche, the tendency to overreach and overact on his way to becoming a walking spoof of himself.
There was a time when Pacino was thought of as one of the greatest American actors in movies…period. His work in the 1970s was nothing short of sublime, with strong performances in “The Godfather,” “Serpico,” “Scarecrow,” the aforementioned sequel to Coppola’s study of La Cosa Nostra and “Dog Day Afternoon.” In the latter he gave his most electrifying and properly energized portrayal.
Along with many of the fresh-faced actors of the day, Pacino owned the decade. Sure he faltered with “Bobby Deerfield,” which meant he was not the type for romantic films…right? Or was this his limitations beginning to become apparent?
Though Oscar-nominated for “And Justice for All,” I feel that film was the beginning of the actor recognizing uncertainty in his character. He let the volume to go up, went wildly out of control, spittle shot from his mouth, and for whatever reason, people mistook this as great acting. IT’S NOT!!!!
Though I’m in the minority, I liked what he did in William Friedkin’s “Cruising” because he was challenging himself again, taking risks, which is what being a great actor is all about. Failure came his way again with the dreadful “Author! Author!,” which I am sure no actor could have saved, and then of course came “Scarface,” which at the time was torn to shreds by critics. Later re-discovered on video, the film now enjoys a classic status, bursting at the seems with a powerhouse Pacino portrayal. For just under three hours we see how power corrupts, and wretched excess causes the decay of the soul…it is an astounding piece of work from the actor, in fact.
He left the profession for a time after “Revolution,” the God-awful historical film directed by Hugh Hudson in which Pacino portrayed a Scotsman transplanted to America circa 1776 with a Bronx accent. He should have known better.
When he came back in 1988, something about his methods had changed…forever. “Sea of Love” was an okay thriller, while “Dick Tracy” was superb, as was his Oscar-nominated supporting performance. Yet in the years since, he has been giving us Big Boy Caprice a hundred times over, in film after film after film, only without the make-up.
Later that year he was in the film that does not exist in the world of John H. Foote: “The Godfather Part III.” It is never discussed on my planet, sorry. Suffice it to say the Michael at the beginning of this film bears no connection to the Michael from the previous two films. What were you thinking, dear Francis??
They would give him an Oscar for one of his worst (Hoo-ah!!) performances, in “Scent of a Woman,” while nominating him the very same year in the supporting category for “Glengarry Glen Ross.” But Oscar hasn’t come knocking since, despite the actor generating at least one deserving performance, in “Donnie Brasco,” in which the challenge of working with Johnny Depp seemed to bring out the best in the elder actor.
When one expects him to do strong work, he fails — such as in Michael Mann’s crime epic “Heat,” where the only time Pacino is not chewing scenery, wrapping his mouth around words, or going over the top is in his diner scene with Robert De Niro. De Niro’s choices as an actor seem to bring Pacino down to earth for a few fleeting minutes.
His performance as the Devil in “The Devil’s Advocate” was, frankly, embarrassing, and while watching it I found myself asking why the devil, this all-powerful evil being, would have to shout and yell every word he spoke. I interviewed Pacino and asked him this, in fact, to which he answered that he was going after decadence. That didn’t cut it for me, because Viggo Mortenson portrayed Satan in “The Prophecy” in 1996, barely spoke above a whisper, and was TERRIFYING. Pacino rolled his eyes, smiled large and of course boomed every word as though trying to reach the top seat in the Old Vic Theatre, giving not so much a performance as a demonstration of everything not to do when acting — which is of course, get caught acting!!
“City Hall” was not much different, as volume stood in for character, and then again in “Any Given Sunday,” “Chinese Coffee” and “The Recruit”. His work in “Gigli” is as unmentionable as the film, while “S1M0NE” is best forgotten. Anyone out there remember “Two Bits?” Thought not. And though his work as Shylock in “The Merchant of Venice” was a credit to his gifts for Shakespearean acting, was there not again a show of acting rather than an actor slipping into character?
With Robert De Niro now reduced to supporting roles in films like “Meet the Parents,” Pacino takes the role of the stock villain in “Ocean’s Thirteen,” does as expected, goes off the rails, all the while his co-stars may even consider it wonderful acting. While working with him on “Insomnia,” he asked Hilary Swank why she was so nervous. She responded, “Because you’re Al fucking Pacino!!” Supposedly he smiled and walked away.
Perhaps that is the major problem in his work, he has come to believe his own press, he has come to believe the critics who tag him the great American actor. It certainly ruined the work of Laurence Olivier in the early 1950s, when he was wrongly elevated to the heavens of the the craft by critics worldwide, and spent the bulk of his career proving he was not a great actor at all. Pacino was, and had he stopped making films after the 1970s, he would be forever considered one of the greats.
20 responses so far
1 5-24-2008 at 4:21 pm
Guy Lodge said...
No mention of his terrific, unusually low-key work in “The Insider”? Great as Russell Crowe is in that film, it bothers me that so many critics seems to forget Pacino was even in it – it was decidedly a two-man show.
2 5-24-2008 at 4:24 pm
Silencio said...
I don’t know. Does Michael Jordan’s ill-advised comeback(s) invalidate his career?
3 5-24-2008 at 7:33 pm
Joel said...
Well, all I know is that I’ll never forget the cop-shooting scene in “Godfather”. Powerful, unforgettable stuff.
4 5-25-2008 at 2:02 am
Belik said...
I agree that some actors you expect them to come up with something entirely new for each role. It is stunning that the same Philip Seymour Hoffman could be responsible for his outgoing character in Almost Famous, for the geeky intellectual in 25th Hour, and then for the perfectly impersonated Capote. And yes, I admire him for that.
But other times comes an actor who gives such a unique and electrifying delivery that you just don’t want him to diversify. True charisma means that you never get tired seeing the same act over and over. That’s why you cry after Scent of a Woman. That’s why you shiver during his “do we not bleed” extravaganza in Merchant of Venice. Same act – same genius.
Frankly I don’t expect all actors to transform themselves into entirely different beings for their roles. In fact, when it comes to the cosmic magnetism of John Wayne or Clint Eastwood or Al Pacino, I rather they didn’t.
5 5-25-2008 at 6:42 am
John Foote said...
Of course Pacino’s weak work does not invalidate his career, and I believe I state that in the article. Had he never given a performance after Dog Day Afternoon he would still be remembered for his great work. What angers and frustrates me is the consistent redundancy in his work…and the volume. Why shout? Why yell? Why allow yourself to get out of control? His work in the sublime Donnie Brasco makes clear there is no need to do this, and yet for the most part he persists. When I walk into a Pacino film these days, there is little doubt in my mind he will disappoint me, though I live for the day he does not. I did not cry during Scent of a Woman but I did when he won the Oscar for it because it was such an embarrassing performance; an actor discovering the upper ranges of hysteria. And yes, actors should deversify and grow, that is what their art and craft is all about. Look at Robert Duvall, different in nearly every single performance and astounding in some, The Apostle for instance!! Pacino, in my opinion has gotten lazy, and far too often is resting on being Pacino rather than jumping into a role and challenging both himself and his audience. It is a tragedy because after Donnie Brasco, and indeed his work in The Insider (though Crowe and Plummer blow him off the screen) I believe he has one more great performance in him. I hope…
6 5-25-2008 at 5:52 pm
Marvin said...
Is the Dali film with Niccol still happening? I believe Kris is a sort of Niccol fan, he may know something about the movie that we don’t. In any case, if the film is still happening, it will at least prove to be interesting.
7 5-26-2008 at 5:58 am
Kristopher Tapley said...
I am indeed a Niccol enthusiast, though I haven’t heard a lick on the Dali picture. I certainly hope it happens, because given where the director wanted to take the material, it has all the potential in the world to be a great piece of work.
So did S1M0NE, however.
8 5-26-2008 at 10:14 pm
Mr. Gittes said...
C’mon, Plummer and Crowe didn’t blow Pacino out of the water in The Insider. In fact, Pacino takes over the last third of the film, and the scene near the end when Pacino rants to the CBS brass was freakin’ great. Pacino, Plummer, and Crowe ( and Bruce McGill) were all amazing in their own ways in The Insider. To say otherwise suggests to me that another viewing is needed.
Pacino fails in Heat…? Really?
9 5-27-2008 at 12:49 am
Guy Lodge said...
Thank you, Mr Gittes – I echo your every word. “The Insider” is one of the great underappreciated films of the last few years – I think too many have forgotten how immaculately executed its every detail is, right down to the supporting cast (I’d add the wonderful Diane Venora to your list.)
10 5-27-2008 at 2:47 am
Kristopher Tapley said...
The Insider was at the top of my list in 1999…far and away. And indeed, it was, for me, the greatest year of cinema in recent memory. I remain beside myself that Christopher Plummer, who may not have blown anyone out of the water but certainly dominated the screen every time he was on it, did not receive a nomination for supporting actor.
The only weak link for me was, actually, Ms. Venora. But like David Mamet/Rebecca Pidgeon, I guess Mann had a soft spot for his real life leading lady in his films at the time, despite a lack of overall talent. She was much better in “Heat,” however.
I interview Mann at his office on Halloween two years ago, and when the subject of “The Insider” came up (the piece I was writing concerned writer Eric Roth), Mann just beamed and couldn’t stop tlling stories. It’s a piece of work I’d say he’s clearly proud of, and with due cause.
Back to the piece at hand, I don’t think Pacino fails at “Heat” in the slightest. I think his bombast is appropriately measured as a high-strung cop facing “the one that got away” in De Niro’s Neil McCauly.
Anyway, yeah — “The Insider” — brilliant.
“The Wall Street Journal — not exactly a bastion of anti-capitalist sentiment — refutes big tobacco for smearing Wigand!”
A ton of quotable lines throughout. But that one always makes me laugh.
11 5-27-2008 at 2:48 am
Kristopher Tapley said...
And, I might add, one of maybe ten DVDs I brought with me to London. A desert island sort of thing for me.
12 5-27-2008 at 5:46 am
Guy Lodge said...
You really think Christopher Plummer deserved a nomination, Kris? You didn’t prefer Michael Caine’s landmark portrayal of the twinkly, homespun abortionist with the delightfully ropey New England accent?
Sorry, “The Cider House Rules” brings out the bitter in me.
13 5-27-2008 at 6:01 am
Kristopher Tapley said...
Landmark. Nah.
“What makes you think you have the requisite skills to edit me?!”
14 5-27-2008 at 8:46 am
Guy Lodge said...
Sorry, the sarcasm didn’t come through there in my last comment.
Caine’s 1999 win is one of those that irks me still. I can’t bear “The Cider House Rules” – the fact that he was nominated and Plummer wasn’t just made me despair.
15 5-27-2008 at 10:00 am
Kristopher Tapley said...
No it came through. I’m just being particularly dry today.
16 5-27-2008 at 11:08 am
Mr. Gittes said...
“Mike”? Try “Mr. Wallace.” We work in the same corporation, doesn’t mean we work in the same profession. ”
I’m curious to know Mann’s thoughts on the reception that Miami Vice received and Jamie Foxx’s apparent refusal to take part in everything that Mann asked of him. It’s been reported that Mann had to change a much better ending because Foxx was afraid to go back to the foreign country in which the final shoot-out was to be filmed.
Director’s Cut of Miami Vice is great. I’ll defend it to the end of time.
Kris, AWESOME that you had the chance to interview Mann. I’m sooo jealous.
17 5-28-2008 at 5:52 am
John Foote said...
I get that Pacino is a cop at the the end of his rope in Heat, I truly do, but why the volume and constant bombast EXCEPT in the scene with De Niro when as an actor he must have known to go ovet the top opposite what De Niro was doing (the real brilliance in Heat) was to look the fool???– sorry I stand by my opinion, he needs a director to tell him to bring it down a tad, go for realism and stop being so freakin’ loud all the time — his performance here did not differ from the mess he made in City Hall, but hey, I know Heat had its admirers — and yes, Plummer was brilliant in The Insider…drop dead stunning…
18 1-08-2010 at 1:34 pm
Robbie said...
I might be seeing things, but does Al Pacino mouth the line given by Diane Keaton, “My God, look what’s happened to our son, Michael” during an argument they are having “closer” to the end of Godfather II (at 33:23 of Disc Two of the DVD)? Since I’ve not found anything relating to this on ALL the interwebs that I’ve looked, I must be crazy.
19 12-17-2012 at 2:34 pm
Stephen Vani said...
I know it’s been four years since you wrote this, so I’m not sure if you still read these replies; but if I may, I would like to bring up my own opinions.
…And Justice for All only had Pacino doing that sort of loud speech for the first time ever in his career and it was only for one minute, that doesn’t mean it was bad; it’s having to repeat it in the 90′s that was bad. Your problem with that movie confuses me because you defended Dick Tracy, which he yelled EVERY line in, and was much louder than in …And Justice for All. So WHY didn’t you rip on Dick Tracy instead? And what about The Insider? He didn’t overact in that movie, and he took over the last third of the storyline. I know he still had a speech, but it wasn’t overacted and he was stopped by another actor; that NEVER happens to Pacino.
Also, he may not have had a good “big screen” movie in ten years, but he’s been dominating on HBO. Two Emmy awards for Angels in America and You Don’t Know Jack; he might even win two more Emmys for playing Phil Spector and Joe Paterno. It’s not the same as the 70′s, but he’s still gone back to taking risks, yet people fail to actually recognize his work on HBO.
I agree with you that he went through an overacting phase in the 90′s, but that was only one decade; that doesn’t mean he’s not one of the best. He’s actually gotten much better now, despite his recent choice of flops at the movie theaters.
I agree with nearly everything else you wrote, but I also think your article still has a few flaws in it.
20 12-17-2012 at 3:05 pm
Stephen Vani said...
One more point to defend …And Justice for All, it’s director was some guy named Norman Jewison; he tended to make good movies.