Features
Headlines
Search
Archives
Christian Bale has been given something of a rough ride of late, with the combination of unfortunate media attention and a dreary turn in the woebegone “Terminator Salvation” slightly stripping the varnish from an otherwise solidly built career. Thankfully, Michael Mann’s “Public Enemies” has arrived just in time to restore some respectability, though early word on the film places him very much in the shadow of Johnny Depp.
However, critic and “Biographical Dictionary of Film” author David Thomson’s admiration for Bale remains undimmed:
If you remember the remake of 3.10 to Yuma, it wasn’t the swagger of Ben Foster and Russell Crowe that stayed in the mind. Theirs were flashy or lazy performances, compared with the haunted gaze and stillness of Bale as the ordinary man who had seen that he was going to die.
Indeed, he’s acted as if he felt like a character actor, and as if he saw no reason why anyone could expect to be mature until 35 or so – his age now. If I were Johnny Depp, I’d be worried – after all, you know what Depp’s going to do in Public Enemies, don’t you? He’s going to shoot you down and grin – it’s an old movie habit. But the killers on the side of the law are often darker figures, because they believe it is their duty. Ever since Empire of the Sun it has been clear that Bale understands madness, and can do it without being melodramatic.
We’ve discussed the increasingly perverse nature of Thomson’s arguments before, but comparing Depp’s and Bale’s performances in “Public Enemies” without having seen the film is flaky even for him. (Particularly without even second-hand word to support his claim.) And I can’t agree on the first paragraph either — I wasn’t as keen on “3:10 to Yuma” as others, but it was very much Ben Foster who stayed in my mind from that one. Sometimes “flashy” is as bright and attention-grabbing as the adjective implies.
Anyway, it makes a nice change to read some unalloyed positivity from Thomson, without his libido getting in the way.
18 responses so far
1 6-21-2009 at 5:52 am
red_wine said...
The 1 or 2 reviews I read wouldn’t waste more than 1 sentence on Bale’s performance. Apparently his new name is one-note-Bale, that’s how 1 review referred to him.
I still frankly fail to see the appeal at all. He is very popular and a cult figure I know, but that seems to have little justification either way(popularity as it is has little justification most of the times). Critics don’t admire him(like they do Winslet or Penn) nor is he actually a big box-office draw(T4 and Batman Begins did okay by virtue of their franchises and while TDK was a blockbuster, he probably had the least hand in its success). I’m not taken in either by his performances or his movies. Where does his popularity originate from.
2 6-21-2009 at 6:51 am
Alex said...
He seems really phony to me. Not very convincing in most roles – great in the Machinist though. This quality actually worked in his favor in American Psycho.
He should do some sort of indie next. That would be interesting.
3 6-21-2009 at 8:50 am
moviefan said...
I like Bale and he was very good in 3:10 to Yuma but Thomson is completely wrong in saying he was better than Crowe and Foster and calling their performances ‘lazy or flashy’. Dead wrong. Foster’s role was flashy but definitely memorable and Crowe’s performance anything but lazy, it was terrific. One of the reasons Bale’s performance was so good was the chemistry and interplay between the two. I’m looking forward to Public Enemies but the biggest draw for me isn’t either Depp or Bale, it’s Michael Mann.
I have Thomson’s book and have enjoyed much of his writings but he lost a lot of respect from me for his orgiastic salivation over Nicole Kidman. Yuck! Give’s Guy’s description of “perverse nature” whole new meaning.
4 6-21-2009 at 9:12 am
W.J. said...
I think it’s probably fair to say Bale will have the more understated role/performance in Public Enemies based only on the trailer. But “understated” doesn’t necessarily mean better, more nuanced, etc.
After some great performances (American Psycho, The Machinist, and [to a lesser extent] Harsh Times), Bale seems to have gotten lazy. He’s content to either rehash those roles or play increasingly generic heroes in the blockbusters. For me, his performance in The Dark Knight was one of the least interesting. Here’s hoping he gets off this conflicted hero kick long enough to turn in something truly original.
5 6-21-2009 at 10:45 am
katie said...
Agree with you W.J. He should try a complete 180. It would be refreshing at the least. My favorite Bale character was Laurie from “Little Women”. I’d love it if he took on an optimist next. Christian Bale in a..comedy? There are very few good comedies, but what a test it would be.
6 6-21-2009 at 11:20 am
wye di said...
David Thomson is very much a flake, himself. I really find many of his arguments ponderous at best and ridiculous at their worst. While I think Bale is an accomplished actor (he’s British, like Thomson), with some technically proficient performances under his belt, I also find him a bit unappealing and oddly lacking in warmth. There are other actors whom Thomson scoffs at, that I feel are much more watchable and have a far more distinctive presence onscreen. Call me generally unimpressed with Thomson.
7 6-21-2009 at 11:49 am
Jonathan Spuij said...
He was excellent in Rescue Dawn and his Bruce Wayne is full of torment and anger. He simply isn’t really the leading man of big blockbusters because he can’t find his way around sloppy writing.
8 6-21-2009 at 12:04 pm
Chris said...
Bale just needs to be more diverse in the roles he chooses. All he is doing is action blockbusters and really serious, dark dramas. He needs to get back to doing some indie movies – the last one he did was I’m Not There, which I thought he was terrific in.
9 6-21-2009 at 12:20 pm
Jim said...
I’m a big fan of Bale, though I must say I haven’t been blown away by him lately, I’ll still see some of his latest work in movies like Rescue Dawn, 3:10 to Yuma, and The Dark Knight, and say “okay, well he still plays the character perfectly as they should be”. The most recent criticism for films like The Dark Knight and 3:10 to Yuma, I’ll never understand as he lacks a real flashy character. Bale has given a wide range of very intense performances that do feel a little bit over the top, but also nuanced performances as well. As far as his most recent film, Terminator Salvation, yeah its poor, but its bound to happen to actors sometimes. Bale has been in crap before, and he will from time to time still be in crap in his future. Very good actor, but he should slow down a bit more, and try to veer away from films where he is…….kicking ass.
10 6-21-2009 at 12:59 pm
brian said...
It seems most of Bale’s criticism comes from his roles in his biggest movies, The Dark Knight, Terminator Salvation, the upcoming Public Enemies, but it all manages to somehow overlook his great work in smaller films like Rescue Dawn, I’m Not There, and Harsh Times, even the New World. And the Prestige and 3:10 to Yuma are great performances in bigger movies. His last three roles may be a little similar, and at least in Terminator sub-par, but he’s still one of the best actors of his age group and he is still making interesting choices. I don’t understand where the attacks come from.
He and Edward Norton I think are the best of their generation. I just wish Norton would find his way again.
11 6-21-2009 at 2:28 pm
KATIE said...
i dislike Ben Foster in Yuma because he’s overacted but i loves the duet between Crowe and Bale,there is a great alchemy!
On his acting in Dark Knight,he’s very good in Bruce Wayne(very James Bond )but in Batman,his caracter is less interesting and the Joker steals the scenes! and again,my boyfriend thinks the best scene in Dark Knight is when Wayne cries Rachel death .
On T4,every Connor scene are cut and Bale never said 2 sentences so all i can say is “Connor is a soldier with a bad temper”!
I loves Bale as actor,he ‘s so great in smaller movies (and in every movie did between 2 Batman )but his image “he’s a serious,intense guy “starts to injure him even when he can be so funny in American Spycho or his Wayne in Dark knight!
He has the same trouble than DiCaprio after Titanic:he’s famous for a character who isn’t his best acting(even if he was very good in Batman begins)
12 6-21-2009 at 2:51 pm
AdamL said...
I stopped reading after the bit about him being more memorable in 3:10 to Yuma than Foster or Crowe. Utter nonsense.
13 6-21-2009 at 4:55 pm
david said...
He has this natural tense quality about him that most actors don’t possess. I’d love to learn more about his background before he began acting.
14 6-22-2009 at 11:46 am
Gina in NY said...
Ugh I am so sick of Christian Bale. I’m sick of people defending him, I’m sick of people calling him one of the greatest actors of his generation. The guy has been in this business for close to twenty years and has yet to be nominated for a major award. I’m sick of his obnoxious, delusional fanboys. He’s mediocre at best.
15 6-22-2009 at 1:20 pm
Liz said...
Because we all know that awards are the most important criteria in determining an actor’s worth.
16 6-22-2009 at 5:21 pm
Star Wattage said...
It’s kind of laughable to see the chorus of vacuous Bale naysayers whine and snivel because Thomson refused to join in the recently fashionable Bale-bashing. Isn’t that what critics are supposed to do – think for themselves instead of joining in some fashion parade? Most critics, like most audiences, just wanna be entertained and not challenged. Bale challenges audiences. Depp does too, sometimes, but not very often lately. Paradoxically, Depp’s been celebrated for some of his dodgiest work.
Face it, folks, Thomson is right and you are wrong. He has his flaws like any other critic, but he’s certainly right that it takes far more skill to do what Bale does than to do the Ben Foster/Johnny Depp type cartoonish overacting.
And this issue of “coldness” versus “warmth,” this thing of an actor being “unappealing” if he’s “lacking in warmth,” is utterly parochial. It doesn’t come up at all in ANY other art form besides movies. Nobody whines that King Lear or Hamlet aren’t “warm” enough, or expects “movie star appeal” in an opera singer. This quality of “warmth” is a totally middlebrow, totally American, totally middle-class obsession. It has nothing to do with GENUINE artistic achievement whatsoever. That so many viewers demand this quality in their movie stars is merely a reflection of their own bratty self-indulgence, immaturity, vulgarity, and all-around lack of taste. In no other art form besides movies is it even an issue at all.
17 6-22-2009 at 8:45 pm
Mr. Gittes said...
Oh man. I guess the darkness is just before…the darkness.
http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/06/22/christian-bale-says-batman-3-might-not-happen/
18 6-23-2009 at 8:03 pm
gah said...
@ Mr. Gittes
Yeah, thats impossible. even if bale and nolan dont return, Batman will. They didnt call it Batman Forever for no reason.