Ben and Matt
I was having a conversation this evening about actors and actresses who don't extend themselves. That brought to mind the example I always like to use: the difference between Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. Friends and partners in various projects, they are two of the most talented actors of this generation. (Lesley disagrees with me about Affleck.)
However, I've always found Affleck's choice of roles disappointing. He rarely seems to take on challenging roles, instead settling for the sure blockbuster (and usually bad) parts. Damon, on the other hand, manages to walk the fine line between the blockbuster roles and more challenging roles (The Talented Mr. Ripley, for example). When Affleck makes the right choice, I enjoy watching him, where I almost invariably enjoy Damon no matter what the role (except for the forgettable Stuck on You, which I avoided).
Comments
I have to agree with Lesley on Affleck, although it is hard to tell if it's his acting or the horrible scripts he chooses sometimes.
I'll say this for the guy though, he's no dum-dum. Of the two, Affleck is actually the more well spoken, which I found surprising since Damon went to Harvard. I listened to him interviewed at the DNC and was actually impressed. If he doesn't knock up too many backlot hussies between scene changes, he's probably got a future in elective office.
Posted by: jim | August 9, 2004 10:52 PM
Affleck's biggest liability, IMO, is his looks. He's had his share of weighty roles, but he's more cinegenic (?) than his buddy Damon. Perhaps that results in Affleck being provided multiple opportunities at 'star vehicles' -- relatively shallow roles in films aimed at pop audiences (e.g.; 'Armageddon', 'Daredevil').
My hat's off to any actor who can come off plausible in both 'Chasing Amy' and 'The Sum of All Fears'.
Posted by: MIB | August 10, 2004 01:21 PM