7Hells said:
Just because the character is written ambigous doesnt mean Denzel played him as such. Denzel played that character as if he had the moral highground, yes. He was above the law, watch it again
How can they be challenging when they are all the same character? The man is a wonderful natural actor. Natural acting has nothing to do with character development.
That's a pretty silly statement. Do you even know what character development is?
In CRY FREEDOM, Denzel's character is a South African pacifist. Good natured, even tempered and completely against violence. Biko died because he refused to use violence against whites in South Africa. Biko was essentially the South African Ghandi in terms of her character. His ultra-violent and utterly corrupt character in TRAINING DAY is the polar opposite. To call them the "same character" just boggles the mind. There's no way Biko could ever become Alonzo Harris. It suggests you either don't really understand much about characterisation, or you haven't seen some of Washington's movies. His Cary Grant-esque funny Angel in THE PREACHER'S WIFE is a million light years away from his Robert Deniro-esqe vigilante characterisation in MAN ON FIRE.
Does Denzel change up his vocal delivery often, or wear extreme make-up or undergo huge physical changes? No. But he doesn't need to. He's that good. His transformations are more psychological and internal than physical. When I watch Denzel in MAN ON FIRE and INSIDE MAN, I don't need him to be putting on some stupid accent or physical idiosyncracy to realise that he's giving two completely different internal characterisations. In MAN ON FIRE he's a humorless, tortured, violent and merciless killer. In INSIDE MAN, he's charm personified, an eccentric lounge lizard character who loves the ladies and is the funniest guy in the room. Not...the...same...guy. Denzel doesn't need gimmicks to give a distinct performance. Kinda like Gene Hackman, another great actor who retains the same vocal delivery and similar physical presence in most of his roles. The same could be said of James Mason, Paul Newman, James Stewart, Spencer Tracey, Kirk Douglas, Montgomery Clift, Peter O'Toole, Christopher Walken, Henry Fonda, Robert Ryan, Anthony Quinn and a whole boatlad of astonishing actors.
And if you want to see Denzel play a character that is clearly not a "moral high grounded authority figure", I'd point you to MO' BETTER BLUES (he's just a womanising, a$$hole Jazz trumpeter in this one), MISSISIPI MASSALA (A lovesick carpet cleaner) and Sidney Lumet's POWER (where he plays a sinister Political lobbyist). Denzel has a lot of similar characterisations. But he has enough different ones to show how impressive his range is. Not to mention the fact that he's an award winning stage actor (his training and background is in theatre, which is harder challenge for actors than film), and has done numerous plays (including Shakepeare roles such as Brutus, Richard III and Othello).
Oh, and Cruise isn't in Denzel's league. Not even close. And it has nothing to do with giving similar characterisations (lot's of "great" actors do that). Cruise isn't a lesser actor because he gives similar characterisations. It's because he lacks Denzel's gravitas, psychological complexity, emotional depth and power, and ability to be believable in any situation (I couldn't even buy Cruise as a "working class stiff" in WAR OF THE WORLDS, where he got outperformed by Dakota Fanning). Cruise has given too many shallow and superficial performances to be regarded as a truly great actor (though he can be very good, especially with a skilled director). Denzel doesn't do "shallow". Also, guys like Cruise and Brad Pitt regularly and noticably get outacted by castmates (even when they have the better role. Jamie Foxx had the inferior role in COLLATERAL, but still manged to steal Cruises's thunder), something that pretty much never happpens with Denzel. He's too good. Cruise is often outacted by his castmates (ie Jamie Foxx, Ken Wantanabe, Nicole Kidman, Dustin Hoffman, Paul Newman ect). Robert DeNiro often plays variations on similar roles as well. It doesn't mean DeNiro should be lumped in with Keanu Reeves and Tom Cruise.
Anyway, I think Bale is terrific. One of the best actors of his generation. But he's prone to giving similar characterisations as well. Or at least characterisations that demand similar traits, in different degrees. For the most part he's either completely bat-s hit crazy or losing it (AMERICAN PSYCHO, HARSH TIMES, SHAFT, THE MACHINIST) or a repressed and/or tortured guy (BATMAN, EQUILIBRIUM, THE PRESTIGE, REIGN OF FIRE). Bale rarely plays a role that doesn't require furrowed intensity. Many of Bale's characters are often described as being similar (Devin Faraci from CHUD is one internet critic who feels this way). His Batman/Bruce Wayne has often been described as a less homicidal/psychotic version of Patrick Bateman from AMERICAN PSYCHO. Many reviews for HARSH TIMES have said his character is basically Patrick Bateman in the Ghetto. His character in SHAFT is basically Patrick Bateman in another movie. And so on. And while Bale's accents can change, his delivery rarely does. So he pretty much always sounds like the same person, with a different accent (like Colin Farrell). His lisp and similar vocal intonations are visible in all his roles. Doesn't mean he's always playing the "same guy". But as a "chameleon" type of actor, I wouldn't catergorise him in the same sphere as Alec Guinness, Johnny Depp or Gary Oldman, who could completely erdadicate their own physical/vocal idiosyncracies from role to role (perhaps because they use mimicry as a tool more than Bale). Bale's a lot more like Denzel as an actor, than you'd think. He may "seem" different in something like THE MACHINIST because he made himself look like a skeleton. But beyond the weight loss thing, it's a pretty typical Christian Bale performance/characterisation. He even sounds like he usually does. If you want to really nitpick, many of Bale's performances could feasibly be described as different versions of the same guy, some more or less extreme than others. But I give Bale more credit than that. As I do Denzel.
As far as Denzel outshining the cast as Two-Face....he probably would. It has nothing to do with him being a better actor than Caine, Oldman, Bale, Freeman ect. They're all on a similar level, all actors actors. But the extreme nature of the role, combined with Washington's extraordinarly powerful screen presence and charisma, would probably result in the sort of performance nobody could take their eyes off. Oldman is a brilliant actor, but Gordon (especially as he was written in BATMAN BEGINS) is a muted, relatively quiet role. Not the sort of extreme role Oldman can usually shine in. If Oldman played Two-Face (or the Joker), he'd probably outshine the cast as well. Denzel Washington is the type of actor that when given an extreme role, as Two-Face is, will milk every bit of pathos, psychology, emotion and terror out of the part (think Daniel Day-Lewis in GANGS OF NEW YORK or Denzel himself in TRAINING DAY. It'll be a performance that owns the screen it's on). Batman was only the most interesting character in BATMAN BEGINS, because for once, all the villiains had far less screen time than Batman. If you give the villains equal screen-time to Batman, and they're played by a good enough actor, the villain almost always comes across more interesting than the Bat. If Denzel gets equal screen-time to Bale as Two-Face, it'll be no contest. Denzel will win, because the villain is always more interesting, and he's more than a good enough actor to demonstrate that. It'll be Jack Nicholson/Micheal Keaton all over again.
Is it all of a sudden wrong to talk with people, no less, with friends? 
