天涯小站 2.0

 找回密码
 注册
搜索
查看: 5480|回复: 3

117.Someone to Trust, Something to Prove: The Films of Leonardo DiCaprio

[复制链接]
发表于 2022-3-24 22:06:34 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
本帖最后由 Reader86 于 2022-10-1 12:11 AM 编辑

Someone to Trust, Something to Prove: The Films of Leonardo DiCaprio
Max O'Connell July 31, 2019

Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) has a bit of a stutter. You’ll never hear it on TV, but you’ll hear him trying to repress it in person. It’s in the studied slowness of his words and stiffness of his jaw in meetings with agents. Back in his heyday on “Bounty Law,” he didn’t have to hide it — he was a big enough star and a confident enough actor that he didn’t even seem that self-conscious about the slight stoppage and repetition in his speech; he still carried himself with a star’s dynamism. In 1969, however, his body chokes up, he becomes flush, his eyes cast downward, and his hesitations are more pronounced when he’s flustered. An unmistakable recognition crosses his eyes: I have to prove to them I’m still a star, that they can trust me in their movie. And I’m blowing it.

Rick Dalton is DiCaprio’s first role in the four years since his Oscar-winning performance in “The Revenant.” One of the protagonists of Quentin Tarantino’s “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” he’s the most overtly meta character of DiCaprio’s career, and another in a long line of men with great ambitions that they’re not sure they can fulfill. Where Rick is a once-popular performer attempting to hang on to what he has and show that his time as an actor hasn’t passed, DiCaprio became one of the most recognizable faces on the planet before he turned 25 and spent the next 20 odd years trying to prove that he deserves not just the fame and trust that he’ll entertain you, but the recognition as a Capital-G Great Actor. That’s something that’s manifested itself not just in the accents, theatrics and physicality he’s attempted, but in the texts of the films he’s taken on. Whether he’s Frank Abagnale trying to rebuild his family as a success story, Howard Hughes taking on Pan Am and the United States government, or Jordan Belfort persuading another sucker to give him their money, the message is clear: trust me, I can do this. If “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” features one of his best performances and an explicit deconstruction of his career, it’s only possible because of how his best work, like the following five performances, play with his image as a man with something to prove.

1997: “Titanic”

Like many young actors, Leonardo DiCaprio got his start in commercials and TV shows (he was even taken off the set of “Romper Room” at age five for being disruptive) before he earned acclaim for stints on the TV version of “Parenthood” (in the role Joaquin Phoenix played in the film) and on “Growing Pains” as a homeless boy adopted by the obscenely wholesome Seaver family. He was eventually noticed by Robert De Niro and cast in the 1993 film “This Boy’s Life,” in which he impressed as a boy who goes toe-to-toe with his domineering stepfather (De Niro). He earned his first Oscar nomination that same year as Arnie, the developmentally disabled younger brother of Johnny Depp in “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape.” What’s most striking about DiCaprio’s work, more than his commitment to Arnie’s tics, is how he exhibits Arnie’s joy at climbing a tree and hiding from his big brother with full-bodied enthusiasm (bobbing up and down and emitting chest-deep laughs), or how his face processes pain after Gilbert loses his temper with him. DiCaprio also won praise as Meryl Streep’s troubled son in the 1996 drama “Marvin’s Room” and even became a bonafide romantic idol after “Romeo + Juliet.”

But while it’s up for debate which is the best of DiCaprio’s early performances, his work in James Cameron’s epic melodrama “Titanic” is undeniably the most important. While the actor was initially reluctant to portray the film’s earnest hero Jack Dawson (and had to be persuaded by Cameron not to play him as a brooder), he’s immediately captivating, leaping and whooping with such infectious energy and joie de vivre that it feels almost impossible not to fall in love with him and want him to show you the world. It must be said, also, that Cameron shoots DiCaprio in close ups that accentuate the actor’s boyish beauty: the piercing, baby-blue eyes, flowing blonde hair and lean body. If DiCaprio has actively shied away from repeating romantic hero roles (often obfuscating his good looks and natural charm with scraggly facial hair or neurotic tics), it may be for the best, as there’s no way he could possibly top being the star of the then-biggest movie of all time.

“Titanic” is also important in that it establishes what, exactly, makes a DiCaprio character: the dual need for someone to trust him and to prove that he’s worth something. Jack is a gifted artist and born charmer; he’s also a penniless kid who gets the ultimately not so lucky ticket on the doomed RMS Titanic in a stroke of luck, only to be constantly reminded that he does not belong in the same world as Kate Winslet’s put-upon rich girl Rose. His first encounter with her, saving her from an attempted jump off the ship, is remarkable for how reassuring he is, gently mocking the “indoor girl” while promising her that he will have to jump in after her if she insists on going overboard. His every scene with Rose builds her up, his gaze and megawatt smile always conveying his genuine care, his every touch meant to tell her she matters. At the same time, he’s putting on a show for Rose’s rich mother and fiance, both of whom openly disdain and distrust him; he brushes off their blunt condescension with a teasing but still polite offhandedness (shooting a devilish look at Rose while informing them the commoners’ quarters have “hardly any rats”). By the time the two share their iconic first kiss, he’s proven he’s more than worthy of her love and respect, and the answer to that other central question (spoken aloud: “do you trust me?”) is unambiguously “yes.”

2002: “Catch Me if You Can”

DiCaprio benefited from the fame (and went a bit overboard, if the stories about his friend group, the “Pussy Posse,” are to be believed) but struggled to find the right follow-up role. “The Man in the Iron Mask,” shot before “Titanic” was released, sees two bad performances from him as the spoiled, one-note pouter of a king and as his dully heroic twin; he seems completely unsure of who he’s playing in Danny Boyle’s “The Beach,” mostly coming off as the pretty blank his detractors accused him of being. His best role in "Titanic’s” immediate aftermath was in Woody Allen’s otherwise lousy “Celebrity” in a welcome bit of self-parody as a spoiled teen idol who beats up his girlfriend and trashes his hotel room just because he can, offering hints of the kind of work DiCaprio would excel at in the early 2010s.

The right role, and the best performance of DiCaprio’s young career, came with Steven Spielberg’s “Catch Me if You Can.” As Frank Abagnale Jr., he’s one of Spielberg’s classic lost boys, beaming adoringly at his father (Christopher Walken) when he’s on top of the world and staring up at his parents as a confused, sad kid when they split up. But he’s also a wunderkind of sorts with a preternatural ability to adapt to any situation as soon as he sees what angle he can play. An early scene sees him sizing up a classroom that’s waiting for a substitute teacher and immediately adjusting his walk from shy to confident, his voice from soft to high and reedy, as he takes over the class. He’s just as good at playing an overeager boy reporter trying to get secrets out of airline officials, then switching right back to a mock-deep voice and slower, more self-assured gait when he cons his way into a job. DiCaprio’s eyes are so bold, his gestures so defined that he can convince anyone to believe in him and give him a shot at a bonafide new career. When Tom Hanks’ FBI agent first meets him, he strolls out so calmly, running through the facts of his crimes so casually that of course Hanks believes that he’s a fellow lawman; you’re so busy looking at the smile and the showmanship that you want to believe, only to find out far too late that you shouldn’t have trusted him after all.

It makes Frank Abagnale the ideal role for the actor, showing a kid trying like hell to prove that he can become the success his father couldn’t be and give his family everything they deserved through sheer power of persuasion...and a star trying like hell to prove that he’s a real actor. Just as important as DiCaprio’s charm is the sensitivity he displays whenever Frank is forced to confront the reality of his choices, whether he’s meeting his father one last time or he’s on a Christmas call with Hanks. On the latter, he takes a softer, sadder tone when speaking and flashes a look of shaken confidence as he hangs up. One sees a kid who recognizes, if only briefly, that he’s out of his depth and he can’t do it after all. “Catch Me if You Can” is the right film for DiCaprio’s career at this point because it’s as much about him trying on different roles as it is about Frank doing the same, with both wondering whether or not they can keep things moving fast enough before people decide they don’t believe in them.

2004: “The Aviator”

It’s strange that “Catch Me if You Can” didn’t lead to a longer artistic partnership with DiCaprio and Spielberg (though they’re attached to a film about Ulysses S. Grant), and that the actor instead paired with the other New Hollywood legend who directed him in 2002. “Gangs of New York” is many things — a showcase for one of Daniel Day-Lewis' most transfixingly florid performances, a staggering recreation of 1860s New York City, and a fascinating epic that never quite finds its shape. What it isn’t, however, is an auspicious beginning for the DiCaprio/Scorsese partnership; despite his numerous similarities to the character DiCaprio would later play in “The Departed” (the need to prove something about his disgraced family, the ability to gain the trust of a man who’d have him dead if he knew the truth), Amsterdam never makes much of an impression. The character seems too reserved, not like someone who’d gain Bill “The Butcher” Cutting’s trust, and the actor seems too intimidated to show the roiling emotions that would soon define his work in the mid-to-late 2000s.

That reticence is gone and that torment on full display in “The Aviator,” the pair’s second collaboration. Nominally the kind of turgid Oscar bait that only actors love, the film is the best and most deceptively personal of Scorsese’s films from the 2000s, a paean to Classic Hollywood that’s also a portrait of the artist consumed by fears of failure and his own demons. It’s also a film that successfully splits the difference between the boy wonder roles of DiCaprio’s 20s and the more tortured work of his 30s. Introduced strutting across an airfield and barking orders on the set of “Hell’s Angels” (“don’t tell me I can’t do it, don’t tell me it can’t be done”), he’s very much the kind of confident playboy artist seen in “Titanic” and “Catch Me if You Can,” with the same ability to schmooze people until they believe in him. This time, however, he has the vast fortune and resources to get whatever he wants. The key to the performance in the first half of the movie is the mix of a rich man’s impatience — seen in his grand gesticulations whenever he’s ordering people to find the right wheel for an airplane or some goddamn clouds for his movie shoot — and, conversely, a perfectionist artist’s extraordinary patience to get that steering wheel or those clouds; whenever he’s told he’ll have to wait for the right weather or spend every last penny to get it right, DiCaprio’s Hughes pauses for what feels like an eternity, only to come to the exact conclusion his employees don’t want to hear. He’s Howard Hughes, you will get him whatever he wants, and he will wait until it’s exactly how he wants it, his money and everyone else’s sanity be damned.
回复

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2022-3-24 22:06:58 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 Reader86 于 2022-3-24 11:09 PM 编辑

Rather than sticking to the usual cut-and-dry biopic binary of the genius with flaws, Scorsese and DiCaprio posit that Hughes’ flaws were inextricable, even directly tied to what made him brilliant, if inevitably what contributed to his pain. Hughes’ obsessive-compulsive tendencies and his megalomania undoubtedly contributed to his drive to prove that he could accomplish anything; they also saw him spiral deeper into isolation, paranoia and poor treatment of those close to him. DiCaprio gets Hughes’ tics down (the constant throat-clearing, obsessive hand-washing), but more important is how he registers Hughes’ reactions to his own breakdowns. The “show me all the blueprints” scene, in which Hughes compulsively repeats the line over and over again, sees DiCaprio’s stare going from steely and determined to empathetic and caring when he’s in control, then into a thousand-yard stare at the start of the breakdown before darting inward, with Hughes realizing in real-time that he's lost control of his speech and his constantly roving mind.

Similarly, his furious battles with Pan Am and the U.S. Senate, and his failed romances with Katharine Hepburn and Ava Gardner, are just as notable for how he recognizes and tests his own limitations as they are for the political and showbiz drama. In his early scenes with Cate Blanchett’s Hepburn, DiCaprio’s work is tender and exploratory, with Hughes eyeing things he believes can make him sick and deciding to go ahead anyway; in the later scenes, it’s heartbreaking to watch his defeated posture and pained expression as he realizes he can’t push himself anymore. Hughes pulls himself together for a marathon Senate hearing, in which DiCaprio does some of the most rousing work of his career as he nimbly pokes holes through his opponent’s case. It’s the kind of scene that reminds the world of Hughes’ incredible confidence and the audience of DiCaprio’s one-in-a-million charisma. And for Hughes, at least, it’s all for naught, as he breaks into yet another uncontrollable bout of self-repetition, and a final close-up sees micro changes in his expression from fearful to rueful to close to unreadable, a grand figure accepting that there’s a limit to what he can control. For the man, it’s proof that no triumph will last; for the actor and director, it’s an acknowledgement that all the skill and charm in the world can’t save them. They, too, could come crashing down at any moment.

2010: “Shutter Island”

“The Aviator” was DiCaprio’s declaration of purpose as an actor: he was as interested in depicting psychological and physical torment as he was in showing off that movie star charm. The latter half of the 2000s capitalized on that, with the actor taking on roles that called for him to put himself through the wringer, whether it was fighting terrorism (Ridley Scott’s unmemorable “Body of Lies”) and exploitation (the hokey “Blood Diamond,” which saddles him with too many noble speeches and a distracting accent) or marital implosion (Sam Mendes’ overheated adaptation of “Revolutionary Road”). He did his best work of the period with Scorsese, however, first as Billy Costigan in the Oscar-winning “The Departed.” The film openly plays with both central ideas in DiCaprio’s career: that of a man with something to prove about himself (in this case, that he’s not a crook like much of his family and that his father’s name was worth something) and the idea of trust, with the latter growing complicated as he sees the limits of how much he can convince murderers that he’s on their side while keeping his identity. He’s superb in the film, but he’s better still in their next collaboration, 2010’s “Shutter Island,” which sees DiCaprio further playing with the idea that young, idealistic charmer we saw in “Titanic” was a fantasy and that ostensibly heroic figures harbor dark secrets (which will have to be discussed here, so the spoiler-phobic should move on).

DiCaprio’s U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels is introduced as a contradictory figure: a smart, skilled investigator who’s also testy and hot-tempered; an idealist with a clear sense of right and wrong about governments’ power over people and a man with no empathy for the very human individuals who have committed their own acts of violence (he sneers with a cruel dismissiveness: “screw their sense of calm”). His voice and posture seem determined and upright when he’s interrogating people, haunted and broken when talking about himself. One sees him speaking to women at Shutter Island with understanding and sympathy, but when he encounters an unrepentantly violent man, his cold stare shows him trying very hard not to reach out and strangle him (he opts for psychological torture(. And yet, he sounds pained when discussing witnessing the liberation of Dachau, the idea that it can happen here, and that, with his participation in the murder of death camp guards, he has his own demons that he has to make up for.

He does, though in more personal ways than he can admit Those familiar with these kinds of psychological horror films will likely pick up on mentions of his past alcoholism and suggestions of a deeper violent side that he tries and frequently fails to tamp down. Many voiced frustration about “Shutter Island’s” ending, in which we learn that DiCaprio’s character, actually named Andrew Laeddis (a patient “Teddy” mentioned earlier), is himself a patient who’s being put through an elaborate experiment to come to terms with his murder of his mentally ill wife (Michelle WIlliams) after she drowned their children. However, the plot mechanics seem less important on subsequent viewings, at which point DiCaprio and Scorsese’s story of man trying to outrun his guilt clicks into place. DiCaprio’s tough guy act initially seems a bit more forced here than in “The Departed”; it gradually feels like a character convincing himself that he’s the heroic man he wanted so badly to be. His nervy, increasingly paranoid expression (those darting eyes and jerking head movements in the revelation especially) are those of a man working up a sweat to convince us, and himself, that his version of things can be trusted. The character he’s created for himself is his way of proving to himself that he’s not a monster; the flashback to the murder lays bare how a man’s full-bodied grief can give way to a pleading, desperate rage and realization of what he’s actually capable of when faced with total loss. “Shutter Island” shows both a character and an actor coming to terms with their limitations, with the idea that they can only convince themselves and others up to a certain point that they are what they present themselves as. It’s all the more tragic that the former decides it’s better to go to oblivion with the lie than live with the hard truth.

2013: “The Wolf of Wall Street”

After a similar, solid performance in the same year’s “Inception,” DiCaprio’s focus shifted a bit in the early 2010s toward portraying how plainly untrustworthy, even abhorrent people gain and wield trust, influence and power. Though he's hindered a bit by some truly heinous old-age makeup in Clint Eastwood’s flawed but fascinating “J. Edgar,” DiCaprio portrays the FBI director as a man building up myths about himself as a someone whose violations of civil liberties were part of a dogged pursuit of justice and defense of America, only for the film to gradually present him as an ambitious man who abused power to prove that he was “a proficient, remarkable lad capable of proficient and remarkable feats,” as he says to himself in a revealing tongue-twister. He’s equally good in Baz Luhrmann’s otherwise gaudy and misguided adaptation of “The Great Gatsby,” using his inexhaustable charm to cover up both Gatsby’s duplicity and his pathetic need to control and relive the past. In “Django Unchained,” meanwhile, DiCaprio’s by turns courtly and domineering performance shows a man whose most elegant moments bely his brutality, with his bravura monologue on phrenology showing his total commitment to proving that he’s part of a dominant race. With this turn toward showing how charisma can mask malignance, it’s frustrating to see his Oscar win for “The Revenant,” in which his physical commitment can’t overcome how few of his tools are put to use, or fact that the film, and performance, are mostly about themselves and the great effort required for them (with an irritating subtext, confirmed by the pleading final shot, of “what else do I have to do for an Oscar already?”).

While awards are hardly the mark of greatness, if there’s a performance that DiCaprio should have won for, it’s undoubtedly as Jordan Belfort in “The Wolf of Wall Street,” his fifth and best collaboration with Scorsese and the best performance of his career. Belfort has the classic DiCaprio charm, charisma and ability to persuade, but he uses it to purely selfish ends to build himself up and cheat others. Scenes of a young Belfort show him deferent and uncertain of himself but clearly in love with the excessive, rapacious environment of Wall Street. He takes the lessons from his brief time in the big leagues to create an even more fraudulent firm, his pitch lesson to his colleagues defined by the exaggerated mocking gestures (the miming of blabbing with a dopey face, a thrust of his hips to figuratively fuck his client) showing the utter contempt he and his ilk have for ordinary people. He’s as magnetic here as he was in “Titanic,” but this time we get to see exactly why we shouldn’t trust him even as he holds our attention and pulls us in with self-flattering, bragging narration and addresses to the camera.

DiCaprio earned raves for his newly demonstrated deftness at physical comedy for the scene in which Belfort, stoned out of his mind on Lemmon 714 Quaaludes, turns into a Jerry Lewis creation, his motor functions failing him as he attempts to crawl (and drive) his way back home to prevent his right-hand man (Jonah Hill) from giving away their illegal activities on an FBI-tapped phone. It’s hilariously detailed work, with a beautifully boyish actor turning himself into a crawling, drooling baby whose every facial twitch and muscle movement shows someone fighting to barely function. It’s also Exhibit Z of why Belfort and his pals, as much as they might try to argue that they’re hard-working masters of the universe, are a bunch of dumbasses with zero sense of responsibility for anyone around them and can’t be trusted (further underlined by how Scorsese shows Belfort driving home safe while high, only to jump back and show that he actually caused havoc). DiCaprio and Scorsese give Belfort the floor to present himself exactly as he was and wants to be viewed, trusting that we’ll think he’s a douchebag and a creep.

DiCaprio’s best scene in the film, however, is a going-away speech after a so-called wake-up call, in which a finally humbled Belfort appears ready to crawl away with his tail between his legs. The normally dynamic Belfort gives the worst performance of his life, his body slumped, head bowed and gestures less certain. He’s only able to drum up some energy when using an employee’s sob story to paint a flattering portrait of himself, an insincere play at pathos that shows how he plays on the desperation of others to feed his own desires, then uses their success story to justify himself. As he’s sluggishly wrapping up his speech, you can see the switch go off in his head (licking his lips, wagging his jaw) as he decides he can’t accept “defeat” (read: walking away rich with no charges) and decides, “I’m not fucking leaving.” His body and speech immediately returns to the dynamism he’s known for, complete with an animalistic chant. DiCaprio’s performance exemplifies the black heart of American capitalism: insatiable, self-justifying, grotesque, and interested in gaining your trust only to prove that it could, that it’s better than you and that you can’t do anything to stop it. That it’s with a familiar face, one we’ve learned to trust, only makes it more convincing and more painful when the house comes tumbling down and he’s still left standing.

“Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” sees DiCaprio returning to comedy, though a more mournful one. The actor’s four-year absence from the screen (outside of his participation in climate change documentaries) makes the film’s look at a star worrying his time has passed more palpable; while DiCaprio remains a huge star and respected actor, he once looked eternally youthful, while now one sees signs of age creeping in with crow’s feet and a wearier disposition. His key scene in the film sees him taking on the role of a heavy on an episode of “Lancer” and finding new shades as an actor, albeit with difficulty. Watch as DiCaprio’s Rick Dalton shifts back and forth between ease at portraying laid-back menace and a wooden, sputtering mess before threatening to kill himself if he doesn’t stop DUH-DUH-DUHing, an actor’s neuroses laid bare. When Dalton does nail the scene, going full James Cagney evil and impressing everyone on set, his precocious scene partner tells him it was the best acting she’s ever seen. He tears up. It’s a funny moment, but it’s also a lovely one that’s truthful about how praise keeps many actors going. DiCaprio has been luckier than Rick Dalton, but his time at the top, like any other star’s, is limited. The film suggests that he knows it, but if you trust him, he’ll keep trying to prove it as long as he can.

https://www.rogerebert.com/featu ... f-leonardo-dicaprio
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2022-4-25 11:58:04 | 显示全部楼层
值得信任的人,需要证明的事情:莱昂纳多·迪卡普里奥的电影
马克斯·奥康奈尔 2019 年 7 月 31 日

里克·道尔顿(莱昂纳多·迪卡普里奥饰)有点口吃。你永远不会在电视上听到它,但你会听到他试图亲自压制它。这是他在与特工会面时说话的缓慢和下巴的僵硬。回到他在《赏金法》的鼎盛时期,他不必掩饰——他是一个足够大的明星和一个足够自信的演员,以至于他甚至对演讲中的轻微停顿和重复似乎都不自觉;他仍然带着明星的活力。然而,在 1969 年,他的身体噎住了,脸红了,眼睛下垂,当他慌张时,他的犹豫更加明显。他的眼中闪过一个明确的认识:我必须向他们证明我仍然是明星,他们可以在他们的电影中信任我。我正在吹它。

里克·道尔顿是迪卡普里奥在《荒野猎人》中获得奥斯卡奖后四年来的第一个角色。作为昆汀·塔伦蒂诺(Quentin Tarantino)的《好莱坞往事》的主角之一,他是迪卡普里奥职业生涯中最明显的元角色,也是众多雄心勃勃但不确定能否实现的男人中的另一个。瑞克是一位曾经很受欢迎的演员,他试图坚持自己所拥有的并表明他作为演员的时代还没有过去,而迪卡普里奥在他 25 岁之前成为这个星球上最知名的面孔之一,并度过了接下来的 20 多岁多年来,他一直在努力证明他不仅值得拥有他会招待你的名声和信任,还值得被认可为 Capital-G 伟大的演员。这不仅表现在他尝试的口音、戏剧和身体上,而且表现在他拍摄的电影的文本中。无论他是弗兰克·阿巴格纳勒(Frank Abagnale)试图重建家庭的成功故事,霍华德·休斯(Howard Hughes)与泛美和美国政府较量,还是乔丹·贝尔福特(Jordan Belfort)说服另一个傻瓜给他钱,信息都很明确:相信我,我能做到.如果《好莱坞往事》以他最好的表演之一和对他职业生涯的明确解构为特色,那可能是因为他的最佳作品,如以下五场表演,是如何发挥他作为一个有待证明的男人的形象的.

1997 年:《泰坦尼克号》

像许多年轻演员一样,莱昂纳多·迪卡普里奥 (Leonardo DiCaprio) 是从广告和电视节目开始的(他甚至在五岁时因为破坏性而被取消了“连衣室”的设置),之后他因出演电视版“为人父母”而获得赞誉(在电影中扮演的角色华金·菲尼克斯(Joaquin Phoenix)和“成长的痛苦”中作为一个无家可归的男孩被淫秽的健康的西弗家庭收养。他最终被罗伯特·德尼罗注意到并出演了 1993 年的电影“这个男孩的生活”,在这部电影中,他作为一个与他的霸道继父(德尼罗)正面交锋的男孩给人留下了深刻的印象。同年,他与约翰尼·德普 (Johnny Depp) 的发育障碍弟弟阿尼 (Arnie) 一起获得了他的第一个奥斯卡提名,在《吉尔伯特葡萄吃什么》(What's Eat Gilbert Grape) 中。迪卡普里奥的作品最引人注目的,不仅仅是他对阿尼抽动症的承诺,而是他如何表现出阿尼在爬树和以饱满的热情躲避他的大哥时的喜悦(上下摆动并发出深胸的笑声),或者吉尔伯特对他发脾气后,他的脸如何处理疼痛。迪卡普里奥还在 1996 年的电视剧《马文的房间》中作为梅丽尔·斯特里普的麻烦儿子获得了赞誉,甚至在《罗密欧 + 朱丽叶》之后成为了真正的浪漫偶像。

但是,尽管迪卡普里奥早期表演中最好的表演还有待商榷,但不可否认,他在詹姆斯卡梅隆的史诗情节剧《泰坦尼克号》中的作品是最重要的。虽然这位演员最初不愿意扮演电影中认真的英雄杰克道森(并且不得不被卡梅伦说服不要把他演成一个育雏者),但他立即以如此具有感染力的能量和生活乐趣而着迷,跳跃和欢呼,他几乎感觉到不可能不爱上他,想让他向你展示这个世界。还必须说,卡梅隆拍摄迪卡普里奥的特写镜头突出了演员的男孩美:锐利的淡蓝色眼睛、飘逸的金发和苗条的身材。如果迪卡普里奥积极回避重复浪漫的英雄角色(经常用蓬乱的面部毛发或神经质的抽搐来混淆他的美貌和自然魅力),他可能是最好的,因为他不可能成为当时的明星-有史以来最大的电影。

1997 年:《泰坦尼克号》

像许多年轻演员一样,莱昂纳多·迪卡普里奥 (Leonardo DiCaprio) 是从广告和电视节目开始的(他甚至在五岁时因为破坏性而被取消了“连衣室”的设置),之后他因出演电视版“为人父母”而获得赞誉(在电影中扮演的角色华金·菲尼克斯(Joaquin Phoenix)和“成长的痛苦”中作为一个无家可归的男孩被淫秽的健康的西弗家庭收养。他最终被罗伯特·德尼罗注意到并出演了 1993 年的电影“这个男孩的生活”,在这部电影中,他作为一个与他的霸道继父(德尼罗)正面交锋的男孩给人留下了深刻的印象。同年,他与约翰尼·德普 (Johnny Depp) 的发育障碍弟弟阿尼 (Arnie) 一起获得了他的第一个奥斯卡提名,在《吉尔伯特葡萄吃什么》(What's Eat Gilbert Grape) 中。迪卡普里奥的作品最引人注目的,不仅仅是他对阿尼抽动症的承诺,而是他如何表现出阿尼在爬树和以饱满的热情躲避他的大哥时的喜悦(上下摆动并发出深胸的笑声),或者吉尔伯特对他发脾气后,他的脸如何处理疼痛。迪卡普里奥还在 1996 年的电视剧《马文的房间》中作为梅丽尔·斯特里普的麻烦儿子获得了赞誉,甚至在《罗密欧 + 朱丽叶》之后成为了真正的浪漫偶像。

但是,尽管迪卡普里奥早期表演中最好的表演还有待商榷,但不可否认,他在詹姆斯卡梅隆的史诗情节剧《泰坦尼克号》中的作品是最重要的。虽然这位演员最初不愿意扮演电影中认真的英雄杰克道森(并且不得不被卡梅伦说服不要把他演成一个育雏者),但他立即以如此具有感染力的能量和生活乐趣而着迷,跳跃和欢呼,他几乎感觉到不可能不爱上他,想让他向你展示这个世界。还必须说,卡梅隆拍摄迪卡普里奥的特写镜头突出了演员的男孩美:锐利的淡蓝色眼睛、飘逸的金发和苗条的身材。如果迪卡普里奥积极回避重复浪漫的英雄角色(经常用蓬乱的面部毛发或神经质的抽搐来混淆他的美貌和自然魅力),他可能是最好的,因为他不可能成为当时的明星-有史以来最大的电影。

《泰坦尼克号》也很重要,因为它确立了迪卡普里奥角色的确切特点:有人信任他并证明他有价值的双重需要。杰克是一位才华横溢的艺术家和天生的魅力者;他也是一个身无分文的孩子,最终幸运地获得了注定失败的 RMS 泰坦尼克号的幸运票,只是不断地被提醒他与凯特温斯莱特的富家女孩罗斯不属于同一个世界。他与她的第一次相遇,将她从试图跳下的船上救了出来,他是多么令人放心,他温和地嘲笑“室内女孩”,同时向她保证,如果她坚持跳水,他将不得不跟着她跳下去。他与Rose的每一个场景都让她振作起来,他的目光和兆瓦级的微笑总是传达着他真诚的关心,他的每一次抚摸都意味着她很重要。同时,他还为罗斯富有的母亲和未婚夫表演节目,两人都公开鄙视和不信任他;他用一种戏谑但仍然礼貌的随随便便打消了他们直率的居高临下(在告诉他们平民区“几乎没有老鼠”的同时,用恶魔般的眼神看着罗斯)。当两人分享他们标志性的初吻时,他已经证明他不仅值得她的爱和尊重,而另一个核心问题(大声说:“你相信我吗?”)的答案是明确的“是的”。

2002:“如果可以的话,抓住我”

迪卡普里奥从名声中受益(如果关于他的朋友团体“猫队”的故事可信的话,有点过火了),但很难找到合适的后续角色。在《泰坦尼克号》上映之前拍摄的《铁面人》将他的两个糟糕的表演看作是被宠坏的国王的单音撅嘴,以及他沉闷的英雄双胞胎;他似乎完全不确定他在丹尼博伊尔的“海滩”中扮演谁,主要是因为他的批评者指责他是一个相当空白的人。他在《泰坦尼克号》中的最佳角色是伍迪·艾伦(Woody Allen)否则糟糕的“名人”,这是一个受欢迎的自我模仿,作为一个被宠坏的青少年偶像,他殴打他的女朋友并毁坏他的酒店房间,只是因为他可以,提供暗示迪卡普里奥在 2010 年代初擅长的工作。

正确的角色,以及迪卡普里奥年轻职业生涯的最佳表现,来自史蒂文·斯皮尔伯格的“如果你能赶上我”。作为小弗兰克·阿巴格纳勒,他是斯皮尔伯格的经典迷途男孩之一,当他站在世界之巅时,他对他的父亲(克里斯托弗·沃肯)充满爱意,当他们分手时,他像一个困惑、悲伤的孩子一样盯着他的父母。但他也是一个神童,一旦他看到他可以打什么角度,他就有一种超自然的适应任何情况的能力。在早期的一个场景中,他打量着一间正在等待代课老师的教室,并立即调整自己的走路方式,从害羞到自信,声音从轻柔到高亢和尖利,因为他接管了课堂。 他同样擅长扮演一个过分热心的男孩记者,试图从航空公司官员那里得到秘密,然后当他进入工作岗位时,又转回一种假装深沉的声音和更慢、更自信的步态。 迪卡普里奥的眼睛是如此大胆,他的手势如此明确,以至于他可以说服任何人相信他,并给他一个真正的新职业机会。 当汤姆汉克斯的联邦调查局特工第一次见到他时,他如此平静地走出去,如此随意地讲述他的罪行事实,以至于汉克斯当然认为他是一名律师。 你如此忙于看着你想要相信的微笑和表演技巧,却发现你根本不应该信任他,为时已晚。

它使弗兰克·阿巴格纳勒成为演员的理想角色,展示了一个孩子拼命想证明他可以成为他父亲无法取得的成功,并通过纯粹的说服力为他的家人提供他们应得的一切……以及一个努力的明星像地狱一样证明他是一个真正的演员。与迪卡普里奥的魅力同样重要的是,每当弗兰克被迫面对他的选择的现实时,他表现出的敏感性,无论他是最后一次见到他的父亲,还是他与汉克斯在圣诞节通话。对于后者,他说话时的语气更柔和、更悲伤,挂断电话时流露出动摇的信心。人们看到一个孩子意识到,即使只是短暂的,他已经超出了他的深度,他毕竟做不到。 “如果可以的话,请抓住我”是迪卡普里奥目前职业生涯的正确电影,因为这既是关于他尝试不同的角色,也是关于弗兰克做同样的事情,双方都想知道他们是否可以让事情进展得足够快人们决定他们不相信他们。

2004:“飞行员”

奇怪的是,“如果你能抓住我”并没有与迪卡普里奥和斯皮尔伯格建立更长时间的艺术合作关系(尽管他们与一部关于尤利西斯·S·格兰特的电影有关),而是这位演员与另一位新好莱坞搭档2002 年导演他的传奇人物。“纽约帮派”有很多东西 - 展示丹尼尔戴刘易斯最令人惊叹的华丽表演之一,对 1860 年代纽约市的惊人再现,以及一部从未完全找到它的迷人史诗形状。然而,这并不是迪卡普里奥/斯科塞斯合作的一个吉祥开始。尽管他与迪卡普里奥后来在“死者”中扮演的角色有许多相似之处(需要证明他不光彩的家庭,获得一个如果知道真相就会让他死的男人的信任的能力),阿姆斯特丹永远不会给人留下太多印象。这个角色似乎太保守了,不像是获得比尔“屠夫”切割的信任的人,而且演员似乎太害怕表现出很快就会在 2000 年代中后期定义他的作品的汹涌情绪。

在两人的第二次合作“飞行员”中,这种沉默已经消失了,这种折磨得到了充分展示。名义上是只有演员喜欢的那种浮夸的奥斯卡诱饵,这部电影是斯科塞斯 2000 年代电影中最好的、最具欺骗性的个人电影,是对经典好莱坞的赞歌,也是对失败的恐惧和他自己的恶魔所消耗的艺术家的肖像。这也是一部成功地区分了迪卡普里奥 20 多岁的男孩奇迹角色和他 30 多岁更折磨人的作品之间的区别的电影。在“地狱天使”片场大摇大摆地穿过机场并大喊大叫(“不要告诉我我做不到,不要告诉我它做不到”),他非常像在“泰坦尼克号”和“如果可以的话”中看到的自信花花公子艺术家,具有与人们闲聊直到他们相信他的同样能力。然而,这一次,他拥有巨大的财富和资源,可以得到他想要的任何东西。电影前半部分表现的关键是一个富人的不耐烦——从他命令人们为他的电影拍摄寻找合适的飞机轮子或该死的云彩时,他的宏伟手势中可以看出——相反, ,一个完美主义艺术家对得到那个方向盘或那些云彩的非凡耐心;每当他被告知他必须等待合适的天气或花最后一分钱才能把事情做好时,迪卡普里奥的休斯会停下来,感觉像是永恒的,只是为了得出他的员工不想听到的确切结论。他是霍华德休斯,你会得到他想要的任何东西,他会一直等到他想要的,他的钱和其他人的理智都被诅咒了。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2022-4-25 12:01:47 | 显示全部楼层
斯科塞斯和迪卡普里奥并没有固守传统的生硬的天才传记片,而是认为休斯的缺陷是密不可分的,甚至直接与使他才华横溢的东西直接相关,如果是什么不可避免地导致了他的痛苦。休斯的强迫症倾向和狂妄自大无疑促成了他证明自己可以完成任何事情的动力。他们还看到他更深地陷入孤立、偏执和对与他亲近的人的恶劣待遇。迪卡普里奥缓解了休斯的抽搐(不断清嗓子、强迫性洗手),但更重要的是他如何记录休斯对自己崩溃的反应。 “给我看所有的蓝图”场景,其中休斯强迫性地一遍又一遍地重复这句话,看到迪卡普里奥的目光从钢铁般的坚定和坚定的目光转向善解人意和关怀,然后在开始时变成一千码的凝视在向内冲刺之前的崩溃,休斯实时意识到他已经失去了对他的演讲和他不断游荡的头脑的控制。

同样,他与泛美和美国参议院的激烈争斗,以及他与凯瑟琳赫本和艾娃加德纳的失败恋情,同样值得注意的是他如何认识到和测试自己的局限性,就像他们在政治和娱乐圈的戏剧中一样。在他与凯特布兰切特饰演的赫本的早期场景中,迪卡普里奥的作品是温柔而富有探索性的,休斯关注着他认为会让他生病的事情并决定继续前进;在后面的场景中,看着他失败的姿势和痛苦的表情,他意识到自己再也无法逼迫自己,令人心碎。休斯在一场马拉松式的参议院听证会上振作起来,迪卡普里奥在听证会上做出了他职业生涯中最激动人心的一些工作,他敏捷地在对手的案子上戳破洞。这种场景让全世界想起了休斯令人难以置信的自信和迪卡普里奥百万分之一的魅力的观众。至少对于休斯来说,这一切都是徒劳的,因为他再次陷入无法控制的自我重复,最后的特写镜头看到他的表情从恐惧到悲伤到接近难以理解的细微变化,一个宏伟的人物接受他能控制的东西是有限度的。对男人来说,这证明没有胜利会持续;对于演员和导演来说,这是一种承认,世界上所有的技巧和魅力都无法拯救他们。他们也可能随时崩溃。

2010:“快门岛”

《飞行员》是迪卡普里奥作为演员的目标宣言:他对描绘心理和身体上的折磨和炫耀电影明星的魅力一样感兴趣。 2000 年代后半期利用了这一点,演员扮演的角色要求他将自己置于绞尽脑汁的境地,无论是打击恐怖主义(雷德利斯科特令人难忘的“谎言之躯”)还是剥削(虚伪的“血钻” ,”这让他背负了太多高尚的演讲和令人分心的口音)或婚姻破裂(萨姆·门德斯对“革命之路”的过热改编)。然而,他与斯科塞斯一起完成了这一时期最好的作品,首先是在获得奥斯卡奖的《无间道》中饰演比利·科斯蒂根。这部电影公开展示了迪卡普里奥职业生涯中的两个中心思想:一个有能力证明自己的人(在这种情况下,他不像他的家人那样是个骗子,而且他父亲的名字很有价值)和信任,随着后者变得越来越复杂,因为他看到了在保持自己的身份的同时,他能说服凶手相信他站在他们一边的程度是有限的。他在电影中表现出色,但在他们的下一次合作中表现得更好,即 2010 年的“Shutter Island”,迪卡普里奥进一步发挥了我们在“泰坦尼克号”中看到的年轻、理想主义的魅力是一种幻想,表面上英雄人物隐藏着黑暗的想法秘密(必须在这里讨论,所以剧透恐惧症应该继续)。

迪卡普里奥的美国元帅泰迪丹尼尔斯被介绍为一个矛盾的人物:一个聪明、熟练的调查员,同时也暴躁和暴躁;一个理想主义者,对政府对人民的权力有明确的对错意识,一个对犯下自己暴力行为的人毫无同情心的人(他冷笑着冷笑:“拧他们的冷静感” )。当他审问别人时,他的声音和姿势显得坚定而正直,而在谈论自己时,他的声音和姿势似乎很紧张和破碎。有人看到他带着理解和同情在Shutter Island与女性交谈,但当他遇到一个不悔改的暴力男人时,他冷酷的目光表明他非常努力不伸出手来勒死他(他选择了心理折磨(。然而,他谈到目睹达豪的解放,想到这里可能发生这种情况,以及他参与谋杀死亡集中营守卫,他有自己的恶魔必须弥补,这听起来很痛苦。

他确实做到了,尽管他以更私人的方式承认那些熟悉这类心理恐怖电影的人可能会注意到他过去酗酒的提及,以及他试图压制但经常未能压制的更深层次暴力一面的暗示。许多人对“Shutter Island”的结局表示失望,其中我们了解到迪卡普里奥的角色,实际上名叫安德鲁莱迪斯(前面提到的一个病人“泰迪”),他自己就是一个病人,他正在接受一个精心设计的实验来接受他的谋杀他的精神病妻子(米歇尔·威廉姆斯饰)淹死了他们的孩子。然而,情节机制在随后的观看中似乎不那么重要了,此时迪卡普里奥和斯科塞斯关于男人试图超越他的罪恶感的故事点击到位。在这里,迪卡普里奥的硬汉表演一开始似乎比《无间道》中的要强一些;他逐渐觉得自己像是一个让自己相信自己是他非常想成为的英雄的角色。他紧张的、越来越偏执的表情(尤其是启示录中那些飞快的眼睛和猛烈的头部动作)就像一个男人竭尽全力说服我们和他自己相信他的版本是可以信任的。他为自己创造的角色是他向自己证明自己不是怪物的方式;谋杀案的倒叙揭示了一个人的强烈不满如何让位于恳求、绝望的愤怒和意识到他在面临完全损失时的实际能力。 “Shutter Island”展示了一个角色和一个演员都接受了他们的局限性,他们认为他们只能在一定程度上说服自己和他人,他们就是他们所呈现的自己。更可悲的是,前者决定接受谎言被遗忘比接受残酷的事实更好。

2013:《华尔街之狼》

在同年的《盗梦空间》中取得了类似的稳健表现之后,迪卡普里奥的重点在 2010 年代初稍稍转向描绘明显不值得信任、甚至可恶的人如何获得并运用信任、影响力和权力。尽管克林特伊斯特伍德有缺陷但引人入胜的“J.埃德加,”迪卡普里奥将联邦调查局局长描绘成一个建立神话的人,他对自己的侵犯公民自由是顽强追求正义和捍卫美国的一部分,只是为了电影逐渐将他描绘成一个雄心勃勃的人,滥用权力来证明自己是“一个精通、非凡的小伙子,能够拥有精通和非凡的壮举”,正如他用一种暴露的绕口令对自己说的那样。他在 Baz Luhrmann 对《了不起的盖茨比》的其他华而不实和误导的改编中同样出色,用他无穷无尽的魅力来掩盖盖茨比的两面性和他控制和重温过去的可怜需要。与此同时,在《被解救的姜戈》中,迪卡普里奥时而彬彬有礼、独领风骚的表演展现了一个男人,他最优雅的时刻掩盖了他的残暴,他关于颅相学的勇敢独白表明他完全致力于证明自己是一个占主导地位的种族的一部分。随着这种转向展示魅力如何掩盖恶意,看到他因《荒野猎人》获得奥斯卡奖令人沮丧,其中他的身体承诺无法克服他使用的工具很少,或者这部电影的事实,和表演,主要是关于他们自己和他们所需要的巨大努力(带有令人恼火的潜台词,在最后的恳求镜头中得到证实,“我还需要做什么才能获得奥斯卡奖?”)。

虽然奖项并不是伟大的标志,但如果有什么表演是迪卡普里奥应该赢得的,那毫无疑问是《华尔街之狼》中的乔丹·贝尔福特,这是他与斯科塞斯的第五次也是最好的合作,也是他职业生涯中最好的表演。贝尔福特拥有经典的迪卡普里奥魅力、魅力和说服能力,但他利用这些纯粹自私的目的来建立自己并欺骗他人。年轻的贝尔福特的场景表明他对自己恭敬和不确定,但显然爱上了华尔街过度、贪婪的环境。他从他在大联盟的短暂时间中吸取了教训,创建了一家更加欺诈的公司,他向同事们的推销课程由夸张的嘲弄手势定义(模仿用一脸呆滞的表情喋喋不休,用臀部的推力来比喻性交他的委托人)表现出他和他的同类对普通人的极度蔑视。他在这里和他在“泰坦尼克号”中一样具有吸引力,但这次我们明白了为什么我们不应该相信他,即使他吸引了我们的注意力,并用自吹自擂、吹牛的叙述和对着镜头的演讲来吸引我们。

迪卡普里奥因他在肢体喜剧中新近展现的灵巧而赢得赞誉,在该场景中,贝尔福特在 Lemmon 714 Quaaludes 上疯了,变成了杰里·刘易斯的作品,当他试图爬行(和驾驶)他的汽车时,他的运动功能失败了。回家的路上,以防止他的得力助手(乔纳希尔)在联邦调查局窃听的电话上泄露他们的非法活动。这是一部非常详细的作品,一个漂亮的男孩演员把自己变成了一个爬行、流口水的婴儿,他的每一次面部抽搐和肌肉运动都表明有人在努力勉强发挥作用。这也是为什么贝尔福特和他的朋友们,尽管他们可能试图争辩说他们是努力工作的宇宙大师,但他们是一群对周围任何人的责任感为零的傻瓜,而且不可能信任(进一步强调了斯科塞斯如何展示贝尔福特在高处安全开车回家,只是跳回来表明他实际上造成了严重破坏)。迪卡普里奥和斯科塞斯让贝尔福特有机会展示自己的本来面目,并希望被人看到,相信我们会认为他是一个混蛋和一个小人。

然而,迪卡普里奥在电影中的最佳场景是在所谓的叫醒电话之后的告别演说,最终谦卑的贝尔福特似乎准备夹着尾巴爬走。通常充满活力的贝尔福特表现出他一生中最糟糕的表现,他的身体垮了,低着头,手势不太确定。他只有在用员工的啜泣故事来描绘自己的讨人喜欢的肖像时才能鼓起一些能量,这是一种不真诚的悲情游戏,展示了他如何利用他人的绝望来满足自己的欲望,然后用他们的成功故事来证明自己的正当性自己。当他缓慢地结束他的演讲时,你可以看到他脑子里的开关在他决定他不能接受“失败”时(舔着嘴唇,摇着他的下巴)(读作:无罪走开)并决定,“我他妈的不会离开的。”他的身体和语言立即恢复了他所熟知的活力,并伴随着动物般的吟唱。迪卡普里奥的表演体现了美国资本主义的黑心:贪得无厌、自我辩解、怪诞,并有兴趣获得你的信任,只是为了证明它可以,它比你更好,你无法阻止它。这是一张熟悉的面孔,我们已经学会了信任,只有当房子倒塌而他仍然站着时,它才会更加令人信服和更加痛苦。

在《好莱坞往事》中,迪卡普里奥回归喜剧,虽然更悲哀。这位演员四年没有出现在银幕上(除了他参与气候变化纪录片之外)使得这部电影对一位担心他的时代已经过去的明星的看法更加明显;虽然迪卡普里奥仍然是一位巨星和受人尊敬的演员,但他曾经看起来永远年轻,而现在人们看到了岁月的痕迹,鱼尾纹和疲倦的性格正在悄悄蔓延。他在电影中的关键场景看到他在“Lancer”的一集中扮演了一个沉重的角色,并找到了作为演员的新色调,尽管很困难。观看迪卡普里奥饰演的瑞克道尔顿在轻松描绘悠闲的威胁和木板的、溅射的烂摊子之间来回转换,然后威胁说如果他不停止 DUH-DUH-DUHing 就会自杀,这是一个演员的神经症暴露无遗。当道尔顿确定这一场景时,詹姆斯·卡格尼 (James Cagney) 充满邪恶并给现场的每个人留下了深刻的印象,他早熟的场景搭档告诉他这是她见过的最好的表演。他泪流满面。这是一个有趣的时刻,但它也是一个可爱的时刻,它真实地说明了赞美如何让许多演员继续前进。迪卡普里奥比里克·道尔顿幸运,但他在顶峰的时间和其他球星一样是有限的。这部电影表明他知道这一点,但如果你相信他,他会尽可能地继续努力证明这一点。

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

手机版|天涯小站

GMT-5, 2026-8-17 03:12 PM

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

© 2001-2017 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表