400 Screens, 400 Blows - As the Crowe Flies

I can promise you that you won't be alone in the theater. I'm not one of the Crowe fans who bashed you back in 2003, but I am a long-time fan who belongs to a couple of fan clubs here and there. And, you're right, Russell's performances have changed over the years and you can see him adding more of himself here and there. For me, that doesn't diminish my enjoyment of his earlier films like Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind, but it is good to see him in different types of roles and to note how his talent grows and changes.

I don't know who your particular detractors were back then, but there are still a lot of us out here who still appreciate Russell Crowe, and even more as time goes on. It was great to read your post and to know that you've developed an appreciation for him. See you at the theater for Robin Hood!

Reply

While I wasn't a part of your, shall we say, less than pleasant 2003 experience with RC fandom, I have been a very active part of his fandom since 2001, which, alas as far as your opinion doth go, rather dates my advent into it. One thing that must be understood about Russell's fans, for the most part, is that they are fiercely protective of him. Not at all that he needs them to be as he manages quite well on his own, but that he inspires that in them (more correctly, us). Perhaps that may in part be due to the keelhauling he regularly endures at the less than pleasant fingertips of the media. I don't know. He's a big guy and knows how to wield a wide range of weaponry, both ancient and modern, as well as box, outride, outfox, and outwhatever most of the rest of his fellows. The majority of his fandom is comprised of educated, mature wimmenfolk (ahem) who, despite his manly prowess, feel obliged to leap to his defense. We are strange like that. But we enjoy ourselves.

I found what you said to be most interesting, despite not agreeing with it all in an entire whole-hearted sorta sorta. We women quite like our brooding Maximus and you men just must learn to deal with the fact of that. But Jack Aubrey, yes, you did hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head with that'un.
Jack is all things to all men and even more things to all women.
We are hopeless! We require being loved anyway.

While I liked Ben Wade and his nuances and his complicated past and his dangerous sensuality...um, yeah...that was good...I have been somewhat less fond of his more recent incarnations. This has nothing to do with his acting, which I also agree only grows more finely-tuned, but Ed Hoffman was just not my cuppa cuppa. It may be that he became SO Hoffman and did him so well that I don't like him. It may be that I spent too many years in DC and am too familiar with such men. Anyway, Cal McAffrey was much better but what we out here in our sandboxes really need is Robin Hood. Somehow I am surprised you, as a non-Maximus fan, anticipate this movie since it's quite possibly at least...similar...in many aspects, including the development of the script during the filming, not to go so far, mind, as mentioning the hair-do and the obvious fact that the producers LIKE the comparison with Gladiator in hopes of producing, as is their job, a bigger boxoffice. As an
insider in the world of his fandom (www.libriscrowe.com sigh), I can assure you, we, his public, have so bated our breath in our endless awaitingness for this particular incarnation that half the ozone layer has now been sucked into our lungs and will remain there until May 14, 2010...or longer, if they most dastardly pull a Master and Commander on June 6th with us and postpone it yet more months. Much gnashing of teef at the mere thought! Doubtless they will film a love scene which will then be cut, a la poor Cort and Terry. The life of a Crowefan is not an easy one, but we find, in the long run of things, most worthwhile...and we are entertained.
Jo

Reply

I've been a huge fan of Rusty's since I first laid eyes on him in L.A. Confidential. I knew he would be a huge star from the opening close-up of his poignantly expressive face. Since then, I've only become more and more impressed with his abilities. I mean, he's got it all doesn't he? A commanding physical presence, loads of charisma, a beautiful voice, the aforementioned expressive face (no actors today seem to possess that particular quality) and a sensitive and thoughtful style.

However, I am not an uncritical fan. I agree with you about A Beautiful Mind. I think he may have over-thought the role instead of doing what he usually does, which is INHABIT the character. Roger Ebert said it best-when he thinks of the roles Crowe has done he thinks of the CHARACTERS and not Crowe. Rusty fell down on the job with ABM, imo.

I do disagree about Gladiator though. He not only brought to the role exactly what it required (a heroic presence) he went beyond that and made us FEEL for Maximus, and for such a broad and sweeping epic he did it subtly and with considerable restraint. As an example of what I mean, recall the scene in the Coliseum wherein Commodus describes to the General what was done to his family. Zero in on Crowe's face. (that magnificent face!). How many actors, of ANY generation, would have or could have done what Crowe did in that instant? Instead of looking stoic, clenching his jaws, narrowing his eyes, or any number of actorly tricks to denote the promise of vengence usually employed for such scenes...Crowe's face transforms into a heartbreaking portrait of compassion and pain for his slain loved ones. I thought it was rather risky of him, and brilliantly done. Throughout the film his face tells the story and it is never cartoony or overdone, like "this" face for "that" emotion. It feels organic and painfully honest. THAT is the glory of Russell Crowe.

Reply

I don't agree what you said about the early films of Russell. Gladiator was great with a stunning Russell like Sasha said above. Very convincing acting, very good facial expressions. The eyes! Russell has the oportunity to talk with his eyes!
ABM was great - remember the scene when Alicia decided to stay with him!
I loved Ben Wade and AG was also very good. The only film I didn't like was BOL. Not enough Russell and no challenge, I'm sorry.
I look forward to see SOP - next Wednesday! - and I can't wait for RH as I love period films.
And I'm sure, Russell is a great Robin!!!

Reply

I disagree with your take on Russell's performance in "Gladiator". It is exactly BECAUSE the film was a "sludgy, brooding mess" that Russell's performance was all the more impressive. Russ almost single-handedly elevated that film to Oscar contention, as no other Ridley Scott historical epic has risen, before or since.

And he didn't ONLY glower (perhaps you've forgotten, since you so heartily disliked the film)....although if he HAD, it would've been understandable, given the character's motivation (his betrayal into slavery and the murder of family and mentor). If you don't like characters brooding over their misfortunes, don't blame the actors who portray them. Russell did EXACTLY what was called for by that particular story. You shouldn't confuse his performance with the script.

And the same might be said of "Oscar bait" like "A Beautiful Mind". If we were to disallow every showy performance, especially of mentally ill characters, we'd also have to reject a large percentage of famous roles through the years, assayed by many of our finest actors. I'm not gonna fall into THAT trap, no sir.

Reply

I am not in the habit of shooting off angry emails and I do not recall your column back in 2003 but I have been a fan of Russell Crowe since 1999 and an online fan since 2000.

"he keeps something commanding and mysterious, just out of reach, just to keep us interested and make us want to keep searching"

It is this quality which drew me and many others to his work in the beginning. I disagree with your analysis of Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind but I am glad that the fans' ongoing ardent admiration and occasional defense has not deterred you from appreciating Russell's other works. I also disagree with your interpretation of his earlier work as "the calculated, one-note quality of his Oscar-friendly films".

Along with the two previously mentioned films he was also nominated for 1999's The Insider. His finely nuanced, largely internal performance in that film revealed a character who was awkward man to begin, caught in a downward spiral of surveillance, threats and personal abandonment that would have made the strongest of men paranoid and the weaker simply snap apart. Russell's Wigand is heartbreaking. He conveys the man's pain and uncertainty almost entirely with body language and his eyes.

Other early examples of Russell's work, prior to his fame from Gladiator, that display his incredible range are Romper Stomper, Proof and The Sum of Us. In each of these the viewer completely believes that this actor is not simply portraying but could actually be a neo-nazi skinhead, a naive dishwasher or a gay son devoted to his father.

My personal favorite performance is a later film as well - Jim Braddock from Cinderella Man. While I disagree that his early work was in any way one-note, I do agree that he continues to grow in range and complexity as an actor whose priorities are clearly about the integrity of the story and the film as a whole rather than giving us another movie star turn.

Reply

I have been saying for YEARS now that..while I like some of Crowe's performances in films like "The Insider" and "3:10 to Yuma" and his early work "Romper Stomper" for example, that I always thought Guy Pearce was the far superior actor! He chose the road less taken after "LA Confidential" by doing Indie films like "Ravenous" "A Slipping Down Life" "Memento" and supporting parts (such as in "Rules of Engagement" which he was the BEST thing in that film!) and has often been overshadowed by the bigger studio-flicker that Russell Crowe has become. While I enjoy both of them, I always lean toward the underdogs and my choice would have to be Guy Pearce. Perhaps someday the Academy will get it right and give him his own much deserved "Oscar".....

Reply

I guess I'm just easy to please since two of my favorite movies that Russell Crowe starred in are the ones mentioned. It is true that Guy Pearce turned in a wonderful performance in Memento, however, I think you are wide of the mark by discounting Crowe's performance in A Beautiful Mind. (By the way, don't bother to use the Oscars as a gauge of talent since it happens to be more of a popularity contest than a talent award. Russ was in favor when he won for Gladiator and out of favor when he lost for A Beautiful Mind. I'm not saying he didn't deserve the Oscar for Gladiator, he did. But the Oscar voting isn't what it should be. ) I'm no bona fide movie critic and neither are you. I just know what I like and Russell can entertain me anytime.

Reply

Crowe is one of those guys who people keep thinking is a box office draw but he really isn't.

Master and Commander was a disappointment at the box office. It couldn't even win its opening weekend, coming in 2nd behind Elf (which was in its second week of release).

In between his two hits, Crowe made films that lost money domestically: The Insider, Proof of Life, Master and Commander, and Cinderella Man. All of those films cost more than they made in the US box office.

As for Guy Pearce, he's better off staying under the radar. He tried to go mainstream, made the lousy Count of Monte Cristo and terrible Time Machine and then went back to taking more interesting roles.

Reply

I am a fan and probably sent you a disapproving e-mail in 2003. This man may end up the greatest actor of his generation. As for Gladiator - go back and watch the quiet scenes. Look at when he scrapes off the tattoo. Look at the scene where he realizes he has been betrayed. Forget the sword play. Look at the man.

Reply

Are you saying that Russell Crowe's acting has improved because he's putting more of himself into the role? See, that is where your whole platform crumbles. Russell is such a wonderful actor because he is not 'present' in his scenes. He actually ACTS as the character rather than how HE would act in that situation. So many popular actors do just that! You see THEM responding to situations as themselves! Russell Crowe actually acts as the CHARACTER. That is what makes him such a hugely fine actor.
Also, looking at box office numbers is no way to judge an actor. As you well know, it is the younger/teen generation that keeps theaters open. Russell chooses movies by what kind of important statement it might make. The majority of the younger generation doesn’t care if a movie ‘says’ anything. They just want to laugh at stupidity. Russell’s movies draw people who want some meaning in their movies. “A Beautiful Mind” is a perfect example!
As for his facial expressions in “Gladiator”, it may be that you, being male, just missed the thousands of subtle facial expressions that were responsible for his winning the Oscar and the hearts and minds of thousands and thousands of woman all around the world! His facial expressions WERE the movie!
Actually I think the closest we’ve ever been to seeing the real Russell on the screen was in “A Good Year”. Humor, wit and silliness wrapped in extreme intelligence.
And don’t think his fandom has lessened at all. We’re just leaving him alone to enjoy his well-deserved life with his family. We’re still all out here looking forward to his next movie and praying for him to bring his band back out on the road for another sell-out tour.

Reply

My goodness, first time I ever read a reviewer commenting on the ardent loyalty of the fans, and you are certainly on the money this time. We are a tough breed. It IS hard to be a Russell fan, mostly because of the unrelentingly harsh and, in my view, unfair attitude of the press, and I have found myself defending Russell Crowe following various reviews. And so what delicious commentary here!

Just goes to show that anyone who follows his work closely can only come to one opinion, that he is the greatest actor of his generation. The sheer RANGE of the roles he has taken says it all. What a body of work. And you have ignored his earlier films in which he took tremendous risks for a young actor, portraying a gay man and a skin head.

But I just don't get the negative attitude toward 'Gladiator.' About how dark and brooding it was. A sludgy mess ... I hardly think so.

I remember Ridley and Russell in an interview agreeing that Gladiator was to be to be a film about death. The lighting and mood supported this theme. Should we expect a story about war and betrayal and carnage in the Coliseum to be pretty or the character who became a victim and slave to it to appear upbeat? Much of the somber tone of the film relates to Commodus, who in real life was indeed insane and who staged far worse atrocities in the Coliseum than we ever saw on film. In the end, historically, he had his own sister murdered when she rebelled against his rule. It was the blackest period of Roman history. And yet I found that the spiritual life of the character Maximus to be quite uplifting and Russell's portrayal of a dedicated family man, a leader who inspired loyalty and affection from his men, and a creature of fierce honor and dedication to be quite convincing. What more can you ask of a hero than such stoic strength?

So you were won over because Russell smiled in 'Master and Commander?" Well, you obviously missed some of his earlier work. He was as charming and effervescent as could be when he played a young gay in "The Sum of Us" in 1994. He showed us more of that warmth in 'Cinderella Man' and 'A Good Year.' I suspect the reason the characters in these films seemed more authentic in many ways is that they showed a side of Russell Crowe that is closest to his real life persona, despite the bad press and that disgusting 'Hollywood bad boy' label. In fact, an actor on the "Master and Commander" set actually commented that the character of Jack Aubrey is most like Russell in real life, intelligent, a natural leader, charming, playful ... and tough as nails when the situation calls for it.

Ah, well ... we forgive you, Jeff, for being so slow to catch on.

Reply

It seems difficult to agree with the previous provocative hints at Russell "going through Gladiator with one single expression" and displaying an "unchanging collection of tics and actor's tricks" in "A Beautiful Mind".
According to me, throughout all his roles, Russell never is the same, he doesn't show "tics", which implies he goes deeper and deeper into each of the characters he imbodies. You can't recognize a recurring acting trick. That is one of this exceptionally talented actor's features. From "Crossing" to "Body of lies" you can't make out redundant "actor's tricks".
Some roles are more flamboyant than others and he plays them with much flexibility, being completely at the characters' disposal. His powerful physical presence helps in some cases, besides, don't forget his eyes' acute language. It goes without saying that his exceptional and magnificent voice completes the whole performance. He has played a wide range of so different and breathtaking characters !

However, I agree with you about one thing and one thing only : Russell's smile, which is devastating and opens a door onto himself and is often linked to his particularly delicious humour.

Further to the French "Premiere" journalists, considering Russell as the best "seventies" actor and speaking of SOP as a real masterpiece, I can't wait and will attend this film released in France on June 24. As far as "Robin Hood" is concerned, it will certainly be a real treat !

Reply