Christian Bale vs. Leonardo DiCaprio

[Coca Cola Duracell Franklin.]

 

[Mace Dolex]

DiCaprio is an amazing actor for his age, in fact the best for his age. I think he will go on to become an all time great in another 20 to 30 years when he actually starts to look more like a man lol.

I agree on that one, he still looks too boyish that I can't buy him playing tough guys despite what people rave about him in The Departed or Gangs Of New York, I've only seen Leo in Revolutionary Road but nothing about it really impressed me that any other actor could've pulled it off.

Bale also is a very good actor, but we didn't see the best of him in Batman. He has shown a lot in his early roles but is certainly better at playing outcasts than a regular guy.

Bale's Patrick Bateman despite being a psycho actually was likable and plus I've seen more of Bale's movies that I consider him the better actor and not because he played Batman.

 

[RKO]

Bale wins all the way. He even has a techno soundtrack made to him.

 

[hugekent]

DiCaprio in a canter.

 

[TEDDY]

Bale vs DiCaprio? That's kind of a random question, isn't it?


Meh!


DiCaprio by a mile! There was a point after Titanic where I grew tired of the guy, but I can't think of one movie he's done where I thought he was terrible. Plus, he's Scorsese's go-to guy right now: here's hoping he, DeNiro, and Pesci are all in Marty's next flick.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Plus there is the whole notion of the Academy being inherrently biased against Italians floating around.

Pretty funny that you say this. I just got finished watching Godfather 1 and 2, both of which...gasp...won Best Picture. Those movies are about as Italian as you'll find in Hollywood, yet they won. Story written by an Italian. Script co-written by Italians. Director is Italian. Many of the actors were Italians.

 

[Boom]

Have to say that I'm in DiCaprio's boat these days.

 

[Lucid]

Better actor? DiCaprio for me without question.

Of course on a superhero board everyone is going to say Bale, but its far and away DiCaprio. Bale's quality of work in his best picture, hasn't been able to touch DiCaprio's worst.

Leo for me bale can only really play the dark characters and i agree he is'nt very likable while leo is

And ultimately I think Bale draws the short end of the stick by far.

Bale's a good actor, but I find him fairly overrated. And his body of work, IMO, doesn't back up the hype he gets from Internetians.

DiCaprio gets better with each film, and the dude flat out owned the 2000s. How he wasn't nominated for The Departed, though, remains a mystery to me.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. People can have their opinions, but quotes like these need to be explained. Dicaprio is better "hands down"?

I have nothing against Dicaprio--I like him just fine--but Christian Bale is one of the best actors of all time. I repeat: OF... ALL... TIME! And I'm not an "internetian" who has only seen the two Batman films and Terminator and thinks that the "Bale voice" is "awesome." I'm actually a film director and I have been spellbound by Christian Bale's career long before Batman. In fact, his newfound A-list status has unfortunately decreased the quality of his roles in terms of creative curiosity, challenging himself, and pure performance level. I'm intensely dissapionted in the mainstream direction his career has gone because it's unadventurous and just plain repetitive.

That being said, anyone who says anything even close to "Leonardo Dicaprio is a better actor than Christian Bale" has not seen Bale's pre-Batman films. Either that or they have no grasp on quality acting when it's staring them in the face. I've seen every Christian Bale film and the body of work that he created between Empire of the Sun and Harsh Times (basically his "non-movie star" years) is one of the most impressive in film history. The reason is this:

Bale is a chameleon, a true film acting artist. He is nearly unrecognizable from film to film, portraying (amongst others) a reserved middle-class husband, an abused dim-witted innocent, a charming boy-next-door, an LA street thug, a stalwart leader of a rebellion, a psychotic serial killer, the son of God, a racist petty criminal, an introverted musician, and a gaunt insomniac.

The key to this admittedly superficial summary is that Bale not only obviously creates a massive variety of characters with varying traits and psychological backgrounds, but that he transforms into each one differently, changing his appearnace, voice tone, speech pattern, and physical mannerisms and then brings them to life with a flair for creativity that is practically unparalleled. THAT is what makes Christian Bale so great, the absolute authority over these roles--the ability to dissapear inside of them effortlessly when, in truth, every movement and vocal sound that he's making is a choice--and then the level of creativity that is displayed within those choices. This is an actor who completely turns his body into the instrument of his expression.

Dicaprio won't transform, he won't dazzle, he won't give you splendidly creative line readings or physical choices that jump off the screen. He can't make you forget that he's Leonardo Dicaprio. Christian Bale does all of these things with authority. He is in the highest echelon of modern actors, the very definition of greatness: a chameleon who creates every role from the ground up... capable of anything. He may have lost his way and become too much of a movie star for his own good, but he'll always be great, with the next jaw-dropping performance waiting in his back pocket.

Close thread.

 

[redfirebird2008]

DiCaprio is this generation's definitive actor. Only Johnny Depp even comes close.

Daniel Day-Lewis is the best actor on the planet right now, by far. He is the only one currently working that deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Brando.

 

[Nina7]

Bale by far. I find DiCaprio insufferable. He's consistently miscast. Whenever I watch DiCaprio in a movie I think how great it would be if an actor who fit the role played the part. Gangs of New York, The Aviator, The Departed, Shutter Island. All movies where DiCaprio's presence detracted. I can't believe Scorsese went from DeNiro to DiCaprio. What a downgrade. The only movie I thought he wasn't miscast in the last ten years is Catch Me If You Can. There was no straining there. His manchild demeanor fit the role perfectly. When he tries to play grown ups, I get the feeling that I'm watching a kid playing dress up. He takes me out of the movie completely. I wish Nolan didn't cast him in Inception.

Bale filmed The New World and Harsh Times back to back. That is range. Range I have yet to see from DiCaprio. For those who say Bale cannot be a sympathetic figure. No, he was very sympathetic in Rescue Dawn, 3:10 to Yuma and The New World. In his younger years, he was sympathetic in Little Women, Metroland, and All The Little Animals(a great, underrated performance). He plays his characters as written. When he plays a remote character, he comes off remote. He's a character actor, not a movie star. DiCaprio is movie star who desperately wants to be a character actor, but I'm not buying it. Whenever I see DiCaprio in a movie, I see DiCaprio as the character and never the character.

 

[TEDDY]

Wow. Never thought Harsh Times would ever be brought up again. Particularly in a positive light. Or that it would be brought up as an argument about Bale's acting prowess. Kudos on both.

I think I'm going to change my answer just based on that.

 

[Crook]

The key to this admittedly superficial summary is that Bale not only obviously creates a massive variety of characters with varying traits and psychological backgrounds, but that he transforms into each one differently, changing his appearnace, voice tone, speech pattern, and physical mannerisms and then brings them to life with a flair for creativity that is practically unparalleled.

I'll get to the rest of this post tomorrow if no one else does, but I'm going to have to call bullcrap on this. Bale is great in altering his physique and accents, but he is nowhere near the level that you've just described. Not that it's bad, because very few actors have pulled this off in their careers.

I'd like for you to name these roles with complete transformations, nonetheless. I might catch some flack here, but Ledger is the last actor in recent memory that has turned in an original performance of that level. Twice, with Brokeback and TDK. And come to think of it, throw in DDL for GONY and TWBB. Those four roles are the epitomy of throwing yourself senseless into a character, eradicating practically everything of their real self. Bale's good, but he has never delivered something that good.

* Since we're on the subject, I'd also like to recognize Downey in Tropic Thunder. He also embodies his character to a great degree, but it loses points because the character wasn't that deep to begin with.

 

[TEDDY]

People going with the whole Bale "physical transformation" argument need to watch Aviator and then The Departed. Not only does DiCaprio commit to both roles fully, the physical change is amazing. He went from flabby Howard Hughes physique to his next movie, BAM! Prison abs and a lean-muscular physique.

 

[bullets]

Leonardo Dicaprio has always been good but I've been more impressed with Bale performances .Bale seems to dissapear in these roles while i know what to expect from Dicaprio. However Bale has recently been kind of average while Dicaprio has been on a roll that doesn't seem to be slowing down .

 

[baerrtt]

I think both men are, at their best, equal in terms of talent but share the same basic 'weakness' if you will and that's the Intense Actor tag that quite frankly does them no good when the material or their part specifically isn't well written or the focus of the picture.

I respect that both men have the desire to take their craft seriously but there've been times when quite frankly I tire of watching the one dimensional Serious and Gritty performances that they've both delivered on occasion get praised by some as nuanced simply because they're...Serious and Gritty.

The acting giants of yesteryear (De Niro, Pacino, Dustin Hoffman especially and most recently Meryl Streep on the female side) all proved that they had no problem in being funny onscreen which is a true test of versatility in an actor and that's something neither man has truly proven (Bale in AMERICAN PSYCHO perhaps to an extent) yet.

IMO great actors can and should be able to do it ALL.

 

[knowsbleed]

Daniel Day-Lewis is the best actor on the planet right now, by far. He is the only one currently working that deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Brando.

 

[TheFuture]

He's an adopted Irishman too, he washed his hands of the Brits.

 

[Evil Twin]

Yeah, I'm not buying the great range for either of them. Meryl Streep has range. Jack Nicholson has range when he's asked to. Hoffman, DeNiro, Pacino, and Day-Lewis have range. Clooney is at home in comedy and drama. Even Pitt. Heck, Cage when he wants to be. Michael Keaton too, let's see Bale or DiCaprio attempt Beetlejuice. Even Will Smith when he's not in "big Willy" mode. And Depp. And Winslet. And Kevin Kline, who can do Shakespeare, Sophie's Choice, and something as silly as A Fish Called Wanda. Robert Duvall and Gene Hackman. Those actors have demonstrated true range.

Bale and DiCaprio are talented actors. But they're often obsessed with the "I'm a serious actor" tag to their detriment. Physical transformation is a sign of dedication, not range. They're good actors who consistently dedicate themselves to parts and rarely turn in a subpar performance, but both are a long ways from best actor of all time. And certainly a long way from most versatile, although DiCaprio at least has shown he's good in romantic roles.

 

[Lucid]

Daniel Day-Lewis is the best actor on the planet right now, by far. He is the only one currently working that deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Brando.

Cate Blanchett.

 

[DACrowe]

He was fine in 3:10, ditto for Rescue Dawn. But he also doesn't have much screen charisma, at least not anymore. I'm glad you brought up AP, because that's by far his best role to date. Unfortunately he hasn't maintained that level of energy. When I hear of actors like DiCaprio, Depp, DDL doing a new role...my eyes light up with excitement. They always do something new, and they never lack the ability to hook you in. When I hear Bale gets a new role, I'm interested and I know he won't suck, but it doesn't exactly get me off my seat.

Bale did this for me in AP. But he's lost that spark ever since.


Where does one discern the two methods? And how can you apply that last statement to Leo, when Bale is the one that's risked his health twice over, just for a movie role?

Bale wants to become the character. He could play scenes in most of his films differently to be more audience or award friendly. Audiences (and award voters) like to see the actor showcasing their talent. But whatever best suits the character in this film is how Bale plays it. He does not chew scenery or want the audience to see his craft. He just wants the audience to see Bateman or a guilty insomniac or a subtly conflicted and guilty FBI agent.

He plays the part looking for how best to express the character. He internalizes the character and tries to push that forward in his performance.

DiCaprio, who is amazing and I am not trying to insult him, prefers a more leading man approach to acting. He completely understands his characters, but he wants the audience to see how into it he is. He wants the audience to see the mechanics. When he does a scene, he doesn't just look for what is best for the character (which he does) but also what best showcases his talent and how good he is in the character. He is an actor who loves a good crying or screaming scene because he shows how good he is and can move the audience that way. He is more a great versatile leading man than a character actor in this way.

I hope that helps clarify what I was trying to say.

 

[DACrowe]

Yeah, I'm not buying the great range for either of them. Meryl Streep has range. Jack Nicholson has range when he's asked to. Hoffman, DeNiro, Pacino, and Day-Lewis have range. Clooney is at home in comedy and drama. Even Pitt. Heck, Cage when he wants to be. Michael Keaton too, let's see Bale or DiCaprio attempt Beetlejuice. Even Will Smith when he's not in "big Willy" mode. And Depp. And Winslet. And Kevin Kline, who can do Shakespeare, Sophie's Choice, and something as silly as A Fish Called Wanda. Robert Duvall and Gene Hackman. Those actors have demonstrated true range.

Bale and DiCaprio are talented actors. But they're often obsessed with the "I'm a serious actor" tag to their detriment. Physical transformation is a sign of dedication, not range. They're good actors who consistently dedicate themselves to parts and rarely turn in a subpar performance, but both are a long ways from best actor of all time. And certainly a long way from most versatile, although DiCaprio at least has shown he's good in romantic roles.

Bale can do musical comedies, carry a Speilberg movie before he was a teenager (and not a family one), play superheroes and incredibly complex mentally damaged people. I'd say that is range.

DiCaprio is obsessed with being taken as a serious actor. But anybody who can play both Billy Costigan and Howard Hughes with such skill and success has range. Even if he chooses to use it on mostly Scorsese films and award season attention.

 

[DACrowe]

Every generation has an actor that defines it. Welles, Brando, Pacino, Hanks, etc...DiCaprio is this generation's definitive actor. Only Johnny Depp even comes close.

Ahem, I think you meant to type DeNiro, but Pacino came out. It
s a forgivable mistake.

 

[Christopher Nolan]

with all due respect, there can only be one outcome-> leo dicaprio. he's one of the best actors right now and this for several years now.

bale is a great actor (one of my fav.), but i would like him to do more small productions. if this poll would be about the actor who could generate the most money at the box office, it would be bale..

 

[matrix_ghost]

Bale can do musical comedies, carry a Speilberg movie before he was a teenager (and not a family one), play superheroes and incredibly complex mentally damaged people. I'd say that is range.

DiCaprio is obsessed with being taken as a serious actor. But anybody who can play both Billy Costigan and Howard Hughes with such skill and success has range. Even if he chooses to use it on mostly Scorsese films and award season attention.

You nailed it.
While everyone does love to get awards recognisition , i don't get the idea that it's a priority with Bale. With Leo is does seem like it priority to get a Best Actor Award.

 

[Nirvana]

Leo and Bale are both in my top five favorite actors list, definitely. But Leo gets a slight edge as his acting is a bit better. Aviator, Gangs of New York, Catch Me If You Can, Departed, Revolutionary Road...he's amazing in all of those. He's seriously way overdue for an Oscar.

Bale is amazing in his own way, but sometimes he comes across awkwardly. Case in point, Terminator Salvation.I love Bale, he's an excellent actor and my favorite Batman. American Psycho, Public Enemies, Shaft, 3:10 to Yuma and Rescue Dawn definitely show that the man can act. He's overdue for an Oscar nod, in my opinion.

But overall, I have to give the edge to Leo.