The WORD - July 2009



ROCKMAN

[www.iquitosnews.com]



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-28 12:01 by SwayStones.

So whats wrong with this...he is only playing himself........







Happy to be here....Happy to be anywhere.....

[www.myspace.com]

[www.facebook.com]

The people who ranked Mick as the worst never saw Roy Orbison in The Fastest Guitar Alive.


[www.imdb.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-28 17:23 by loog droog.

These lists are ridiculous, imo. I thought Mick was fantastic in Performance and Elysian Fields. I typically don't like sci-fi, so it wasn't surprising that I didn't care for Freejack. I think I read about him being offered a role in a new T. Roosevelt movie..I hope it works out for him.

Didn't KISS make a movie? Maybe the listmakers never saw that one.

-TomR

Jagger is in a league all of his own when it comes to acting.

...he is worse than abysmal.

he can't be the worst, based on his excellent work in Performance, alone. No matter how bad he was in Ned Kelly. Or Freejack... actually, what's most puzzling is why he even took that role--was he friends with the director?

What I've seen of Elysian Fields and Bent are certainly credible jobs, too. I would imagine the vast majority of rockers-as-actors are terrible in every role they take.

mick is to acting what chuck wepner is to boxing

In today's LA Times there is a review of a book Hertzog has written on the making of Fitzcarraldo. Les Blanks' documentary Burden of Dreams--which contains footage of Mick's performance--is a very compelling portrait of the filmmakers struggle to make that film. [In the same vein, Hearts of Darkness is a very interesting look at the filming of Apocalypse Now]

As far as Mick Jagger...I think what we're forgetting that there are two types of film performers: some people are Actors. Other people are Stars.


There are great Actors who do exactly what they are supposed to do, and make you believe they ARE the person they are playing. But at the same time, they aren't "Stars" who are offered lead roles and bring crowds to the box office.

And then there are Stars. People who are magnetic and have the "it" factor that makes others love them and even want to be like them. When they're on screen, you can't take your eyes off of them. These people aren't always the best actors, but they manage to get by on their looks or personality.

Farrah Fawcett, may she rest in peace, was not a great actor.

A few people manage to be both: stars who are also great actors. Brando. Cagney.

Mick is a great star on stage, but that has rarely been translated to film roles, with the exception of Performance where he played an extreme version of himself.




Everyone whines about bad actors as if that's the worst crime in the world. Is it really? In the big scheme of things, isn't it far worse to be bad at other professions? Certainly a bad surgeon, a bad architect or building inspector, a bad police officer, a bad school teacher, etc. etc. has far worse and very real impact on people's lives than someone who was miscast in a part and disrupted our suspension of disbelief.

Quote
Rockman


The WORD - July 2009

My same answer as sometime before: If you are not a skilled actor you depend on your director. Herzog obviously took the time to get the best out of Mick. Others took the name. Not only for us Germans famous/infamous Kinski got both parts in the end: Fitzcaraldo plus Mick's scenes.

Jagger is a good actor if he has a good role. Alysian Fields is a good film, and he had a great role, and does quite well! As with Performance.

Mick did well in performance but was totally miscast in Ned Kelly. Of course his name sold the film - as was probably the intention. But his thin slightly effeminet and spindly frame was a most unlikely image of what the real Ned Kelly was probably like (thats before we get to the dodgey oirish accent),
He did ok being himself in the 'Turn the Girl Loose' film, but in any serious acting roles he's been 'hammy' to say the least.

the thing is jagger ain't acting

Quote
Fingers
So whats wrong with this...he is only playing himself........

So Brown Sugar is on Through the Past . . now? Allen Klein would be so pleased.

Amazing that they forgot about Running Out of Luck and he was STILL voted the worst rock and roll actor of all time. I still have this laser disc.

It's not really that bad, but I remember thinking that while Jagger was wasting time making this, he could have been working on a Stones album.

Yeah - and it's from the Tour Of The Americas! Klein IS tremendously pleased!

He was working on a Stones album. Just listen to Winning Ugly.

Performance is very good, but he may be playing himself.

Elysian Fields/Bent - good

Freejack and Ned Kelly -- combined, maybe enough to merit consideration for this award, but I'm not sure who the competition is...

thought Bowie was quite good in Man Who Fell to Earth, but again -- was that acting?

FREEJACK- Love Micks role in it.
"Get The Meat!"

I've always found Mick's acting - no matter how good or bad - to be very entertaining and, especially in Running Out Of Luck - very funny.

Nothing about his performance in BENT with Clive Owen. He was in a Marlene Dietrich mood.
Performance was the best he never made, but I don't think he's an actor anyway.

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
NICOS
I think Performance was his best


.

May be too close to his own human being ?

I never saw Elysian Fields ,only few minutes on You Tube.
he seemed to do it well.


The worse for me was Ned Kelly .
I saw the movie in 75 during a school movie meeting .I was so proud to say he was the Stones leader ,and how great he was ...blah blah but I felt a bit p****d off after the film..

I just saw "The Man from Elysian Fields" on the television, it's not a master piece but it was not bad not bad at all, although I don't think Mick act natural but for this kind of role it just fits him.

So SwayStones, I don't know if you already saw the movie go see it..................

__________________________




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-31 02:04 by NICOS.

Have they seen "Renaldo and Clara"?

i cringe just thinking about his acting.......but his best bit was
the SNL Tom Snyder thing. Everything else makes me embarrassed as a fan.

And then...what's worse is when he's interviewed about his acting.
He's got his canned response that performing as a rock star on stage & acting
are the same...blah blah blah....

It's a good thing his singing career worked out.


IORR............but I like it!

Although not rock, Madonna has managed to to create dog sh!t on the big screen.

Thought he was fabulous in "Freejack" and even better in "The Man from Elysian Fields".

Mick is, above all else, a performer, not a musician, although he is obviously musically blessed too. Hence him being ideal for "Performance".

Drew

i liked Sir Jagger in "The Man from Elysian Fields"

***********************************************************
"What I'm doing is a sexual thing. I dance and all dancing is a replacement for sex". - Mick Jagger

Quote
Bliss
Well, that's interesting, coming from an English newspaper, considering how lately its been said that Performance is the greatest British film of all time. The country's best film starring the worst actor?

Were the two polls done by the same paper and the same writer?

If not, whats the significance?

Quote
marchbaby
i liked Sir Jagger in "The Man from Elysian Fields"

A movie I've still never seen. Was it ever released in the UK? Dont think its ever been on TV here either.

The Man From Elysian Fields is a very good film and Jagger is excellent in it as well. He can act when given a good role, good director that pushes him, and other good actors in the movie that challenge him.
Performance was excellent, but alas I fear Jagger wasn't really acting, but playing himself to great effect.

Ned Kelly-Atrocious
Free Jack-Atrocious, but not all his fault, bad story, poorly written, and poorly directed.
Bent-good job and a pretty good film.