Even the Batman thing is a collaboration with an artist, Christopher Nolan (as Cage tried to support The Pangs and LaBute – amongst others – and make commercial cinema with edge, like Burton’s non-starting Superman). Do we need to beat up a guy who did two Batman movies and a Terminator while also doing I’m Not There, 3:10 to Yuma, The Prestige, Rescue Dawn, New World, Harsh Times, Howl’s Moving Castle, The Machinist, Equilibrium, Reign of Fire, Laurel Canyon, Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, Shaft, and American Psycho?
Look at the list. High-artistic-ambition directors Haynes, Mangold, Nolan, Herzog, Malick, Miyzaki (sic), Brad Anderson, Cholodenko, Mary Harron, plus artistically ambitious commercial directors like Singleton and John Madden in his Shakespeare In Love follow-up.
David Poland’s defense of Christian Bale against a mean-spirited, thoughtless attack on the actor by The Wrap’s Deson Thomson.
Comments
14 responses to “Standing up for Bale”
Wow, some low-blows by Thomson, good job by Poland to defend one of my favorite actors today.
I liked Mann’s indication that there may have been more that happened than the one incident to bring on Bale’s actions, but regardless its over and done with. Bale seems to still working hard on many project and he always does a great job in them and takes them seriously.
It doesn’t help that critics are tearing apart his latest film T4. Most reviews say Bale is absolutely 1 note & robotic.
Calling James Mangold a high-artistic ambition director is the laugh of the day
When is your “Terminator Salvation” review popping up?
The reviews so far have not been positive, which is quite disappointing as I was looking forward to this film.
i don’t think it was mean spirited, really because it wasn’t really about Bale, but about the decline of stars in hollywood.
Using Bale’s onset rant against him in an evaluation of his star quality is uncalled for, I agree.
But that aside, I agree with an awful lot of what Thomson has to say — albeit at an entirely subjective level. Fine actor that he can be, Bale simply doesn’t project movie-star charisma for me; it’s an intangible that can’t really be correctly or incorrectly identified.
So I think Poland’s rebuttal is a bit off the point. Bale’s tenacity and taste in collaborators can’t be denied; it’s what makes him a successful and credible actor. Thomson isn’t questioning his credentials as an actor, but as a movie star. If he doesn’t have “it” for you, he just doesn’t.
Guy: It’s very much on point, considering the Thomson line Poland made it a point of quoting:
“If we see a glint in his eyes, it’s just his determination to be famous. But there’s also something more ominous — our own sense of entitlement.””
If this is the Desson Thomson who used to write here for the Washington Post, he’s not exactly what you would call a great mind in the world of film analysis. Whoever it is he’s full of crap.
so, let me get this straight: thomson says that bale considers himself an actor, not a movie star; then thomson criticizes him for it? is that right?
LOL. okay.
clooney may have that “movie star twinkle,” but he’s an absolutely mediocre actor (put clooney in nolan’s batman films, do you really think he would’ve come anywhere near bale’s performances?). maybe thomson should instead ask why it is that harron, herzog, mann, nolan, et. al. have never worked w/ clooney as opposed to criticizing bale for being what bale never wanted to be in the first place? and props to *anyone* who, despite deliberately choosing *not* to be a movie star, still manages to headline the most financially successful movie of the decade.
when did we become a nation of dr. lauras, eager to point our fingers at anyone behaving badly? i mean, seriously . . .
The funny thing is, after that rant, people are always quick to say that Bale is an egomaniac trying desperately to be a movie star…but in reality the guy never wanted to be a star, and he’s said that numerous times in interviews. Unfortunately for him, it was thrust upon him when Dark Knight became what it did. Poland makes some good points. Numerous internet bloggers have been jumping on the latest bandwagon and calling Bale “repetitive” in his recent performances, citing that he’s always “growling.” Really? Two Batman flicks (where the voice is integral and has a purpose) and one Terminater movie (where his voice is merely a little raspy) among a slew of many other films (challenging ones, some of them) and they’re already saying this. Seems premature.
I stopped reading the piece after “(If you factor in the six movies in which he was pretty much the main attraction — both “Batman” movies, as well as “American Psycho,” “The Machinist,” “The Prestige” and “Rescue Dawn” — his overall average weekend draw is $37.9 million.)”
That argument is already fraught with silliness. Bale was hardly the reason people were going to see either Batman movie (a reason, yes, but not the main attraction by any regards) and “The Prestige” too for that matter. While movies like “Rescue Dawn” were always going to remain tiny and “American Psycho”/”The Machinest” were before he was a “star” so they’re hardly beneficial to an argument about his bankability.
Poor beaten-up ol’ Christian. I wonder how long he’s going to be on that hook for.
This article feels strangely like it’s blaming him for something, in a meta sort of way. At least that’s how it came across to me. Maybe it’s cause blaming is the new black in this time of econo-hell.
Maybe I’m an idiot but I think Bale’s one of the truest actors around… In some respects, he reminds me of the great Daniel Day-Lewis – an actor who, for better or worse, commits 150% to the character he is playing.
Thing is, I want to see Bale’s “Age of Innocence,” his Cecil Vyse. I do believe he has it in him. IMHO, one of his most overlooked roles is Laurie in Gillian Armstrong’s “Little Women.” He definitely brought the dissipation to Laurie in Europe, but he also was a splendid romantic opposite Winona Ryder. In fact, I’d love to see a strong director (Scorsese) with a solid script bring those two back together. (Bale even married Ryder’s former assistant.)
Mary Louise Parker once said something interesting. She said, “Sometimes critics act like you didn’t do what they wanted you to do because you can’t… when really you didn’t do what they wanted because you made other choices.”
That people like Clooney’s movie-star twinkle is fine. What’s not fine is to believe Bale is trying to do the same but failing because he can’t. In reality, it’s pretty obvious he’s not even TRYING to project movie star charisma in all those parts. When the part calls for charisma, he gives it (like the aforementioned LITTLE WOMEN). But not always.