http://readydemolitionfilm.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-robert-de-niro-no-longer-matters.html
Why Robert De Niro No Longer Matters
Let's get down to brass tacks. Robert De Niro has destroyed his status as one of the greatest actors of our time. His career hasn't merely gotten of track. This isn't a bump in the road. There's no more saying "If he doesn't stop doing this, he's going to taint his reputation." It's too late. His reputation is well tainted. His career choices over the past ten years cannot be forgiven. That's not the worst of it. With a new generation only knowing De Niro through his "Fockers" role, the amazing legacy he once had may not even be remembered.
Remember John Travolta's career before Pulp Fiction? De Niro's is worse. You think I'm talking nuts here, don't you? How dare I even begin to question Robert De Niro's talents and legacy!? First, I don't question his talents at all. He will always be considered a great character actor. If nothing else, acting students for generations will study his deep obsession to method performances. There are plenty to choose from: Johnny Boy, Vito Corleone, Travis Bickle, Robert Pupkin, Al Capone, Jack Walsh, Jimmy Conway, Max Cady, Ace Rothstein, and Neil McCauley. That's quite a roster of characters. However, I didn't just end that list arbitrarily. His performance as Neil McCauley in Heat is arguably one of his last, great memorable performances. Guys, that was over 15 years ago! Besides his "Meet the Parents" character, Jack Byrnes, name me one other memorable character he's played since Heat? (and I'm not using the word "memorable" with good connotations when describing the role of Jack Byrnes!) Can't name one? Let me help.
Here's a list of every Robert DeNiro performance from 2000-2010.
The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle (2000)
Men of Honor (2000)
Meet the Parents (2000)
15 Minutes (2001)
The Score (2001)
Showtime (2002)
City by the Sea (2002)
Analyze that (2002)
Godsend (2004)
Shark Tale (2004)
Meet the Fockers (2004)
The Bridge of San Luis Rey (2004)
Hide and Seek (2005)
Arthur and the Invisibles (2006)
The Good Shepherd (2006)
Stardust (2007)
What Just Happened (2008)
Righteous Kill (2008)
Everybody's Fine (2009)
Machete (2010)
Stone (2010)
Little Fockers (2010)
I guess we should have been clued in that something was wrong when he involved himself with Rocky and Bullwinkle. Ok, if we ignore that major blight, this decade didn't start off too horribly. Meet the Parents is a funny enough film and I understand why he chose that role. I have no beef there. The Score was a pretty decent film. Then, uh-oh, there it is: Showtime. That horrible movie he did with Eddie Murphy that was supposed to be a comedy. His career gets pretty off track soon after. The Good Shepherd is his one saving grace in this decade and perhaps a last ditch attempt to hold on to his legacy. Despite the fact it met with mediocre reviews and box-office receipts, he still managed to preserve some prestige by directing the story. After that, it's shitty film after shitty film.
Still trying to reason out his choices? Let's contrast it by looking at every film he did in the 1990s.
Goodfellas (1990)
Awakenings (1990)
Guilty by Suspicion (1991)
Backdraft (1991)
Cape Fear (1991)
Mistress (1992)
Night and the City (1992)
Mad Dog and Glory (1993)
The Boy's Life (1993)
A Bronx Tale (1993)
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)
Casino (1995)
Heat (1995)
The Fan (1996)
Sleepers (1996)
Marvin's Room (1996)
Cop Land (1997)
Wag the Dog (1997)
Jackie Brown (1997)
Great Expectation (1998)
Ronin (1998)
Analyze This (1999)
Flawless (1999)
Not all of these films met with financial success, but most met with critical. In fact, the only films on this list considered disappointments (or downright bad) are Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and The Fan. Yet, even he didn't get slammed in those critical drubbings. He was considered the one saving grace of Frankenstein (although I think the film is underrated but we can discuss separately). And, of course, there are the decades of work prior with Mean Streets, Godfather 2, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, King of Comedy, etc…
De Niro was never a classic Hollywood star in the way that others from his generation were (like Jack Nicholson). Up until about the mid 90s, his star power alone did not carry a film. He was a character actor. Perhaps the most famous character actor that's ever worked in Hollywood. Beyond his method preparations, he also stuck to smaller, riskier, bolder, dramatic fare. He chose films with quality directors like Scorsese, Coppola, Tarantino, Mann, and Bertolucci just to name a few. He picked roles that would continue to hone his acting abilities. Even though Neil McCauley might be his last memorable lead dramatic role, he still had some great smaller roles in the late 90s. That was an excellent decade for him.
So where the hell did everything go wrong? Let's glance back over these two decades and analyze the numbers. The answer can be found in 1999 and 2000. Oddly enough, the career killers came with perhaps his two biggest financial successes: Analyze This and Meet the Parents. The films themselves aren't career killers. They were 100+ million dollar grossing films and are actually pretty decent. With them, De Niro finally became a box office draw. His name could now sell a film just by appearing in font on a poster. Perhaps that's what De Niro had always wanted? The roles in both of these films were essentially caricatures of himself. Audiences love that infamous beaming De Niro grin and that's what he gave them. And there his fall from grace began.
From these films on, he seemed to cash in on their success and his mug. Had had no problem collecting huge paychecks for their unnecessary (and flat out horrible) sequels. He continued on with lame comedies (like Showtime). A lot of gifted actors who end up becoming Hollywood stars have adhered to the "one for them, one for me" motto. You do one film for the paycheck and help the studio out with some profit. Then you do the next one for yourself, an artsy choice designed to garner acclaim. Brad Pitt is a wonderful example of this type of actor. Tom Cruise used to follow this logic before he went crazy. De Niro's got the smarts and Hollywood know-how to do this as well. Problem is he's not. You want to do a film like "Showtime," ok. But then you better follow it up with the type of role that made you an acting giant in the industry to being with. Instead, De Niro continued on with stale dramatic works that might as well have been made for television. Honestly, would you have believed if I told you 10 years ago that Al Pacino and De Niro would team up again (Righteous Kill) and no one would care? I don't blame Pacino. Besides a few questionable film choices over the past 10 years, there's no question that he still has the ability to choose good roles. Pacino still even does work on the stage.
The fact that De Niro was originally supposed to play Daniel Day Lewis's role in Gangs of New York and Martin Sheen's role in The Departed makes his career choices of the last 10 years even harder to swallow. Has Scorsese been that integral to De Niro's success? I'm starting to think so. De Niro's a loose cannon in his roles these days. He never seems to know when to shut off. It's one thing to be a great actor stuck in a bad movie. Robert De Niro is actually giving horrible performances in these bad movies. In Little Fockers, one of the jokes in the trailers has Ben Stiller stabbing a syringe into DeNiro's erection (in front of a little kid no less). I wonder how the young De Niro that won an Oscar for playing Jake LaMotta would have reacted to this footage.
De Niro seems to get off on playing a caricature of the roles that made him famous. When he makes that infamous beaming grin now, it doesn't seem natural. Whenever he makes a facial expression, he seems to be giving an impression of himself no different than a million other hack impressionists that gloat about their "DeNiro" give (yes, I'm one of these hacks, too). De Niro is following the same career path as Nicolas Cage at this moment. Cage (who has talents to rival De Niro and I will back that up if necessary), has been playing off his celebrity over the past 10 years. As a result, he's kind of become a joke. De Niro's doing the same thing but he's in a worse position. Cage is still young enough to turn it around (and after Bad Lieutenant, I have faith he will). De Niro, not to be morbid, aint getting any younger. I've read decent things about his performance in Stone, but that means nothing when you immediately follow it up with Little Fockers. Hollywood is all about the "What have you done for me lately?" mentality.
Normally, at this point in an essay, I'd offer points of suggestion or improvement for my subject. Sorry, Bobby. I got nothing for you. The damage done with these career choices simply cannot be repaired. When most of the younger generation that goes to the movies knows DeNiro as the "Focker" guy, how can his reputation and legacy be fixed? Even if I were to play all his Scorsese work to these kids, eyelids pried open Clockwork Orange style, would that erase their vision of him? Does he even deserve redemption? Ok, he was the best part of Machete. I'll give him that. But, Christ, should that have even been a career choice? Don't give me the bullshit excuse he did it for fun. He's been doing that for over 10 years now and, quite frankly, we're not having fun. Re-teaming with Scorsese isn't going to be enough. A new generation doesn't know him for this work or any other he's done with reputable directors in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. His situation is bad. Real bad.
Why Robert De Niro No Longer Matters
Let's get down to brass tacks. Robert De Niro has destroyed his status as one of the greatest actors of our time. His career hasn't merely gotten of track. This isn't a bump in the road. There's no more saying "If he doesn't stop doing this, he's going to taint his reputation." It's too late. His reputation is well tainted. His career choices over the past ten years cannot be forgiven. That's not the worst of it. With a new generation only knowing De Niro through his "Fockers" role, the amazing legacy he once had may not even be remembered.
Remember John Travolta's career before Pulp Fiction? De Niro's is worse. You think I'm talking nuts here, don't you? How dare I even begin to question Robert De Niro's talents and legacy!? First, I don't question his talents at all. He will always be considered a great character actor. If nothing else, acting students for generations will study his deep obsession to method performances. There are plenty to choose from: Johnny Boy, Vito Corleone, Travis Bickle, Robert Pupkin, Al Capone, Jack Walsh, Jimmy Conway, Max Cady, Ace Rothstein, and Neil McCauley. That's quite a roster of characters. However, I didn't just end that list arbitrarily. His performance as Neil McCauley in Heat is arguably one of his last, great memorable performances. Guys, that was over 15 years ago! Besides his "Meet the Parents" character, Jack Byrnes, name me one other memorable character he's played since Heat? (and I'm not using the word "memorable" with good connotations when describing the role of Jack Byrnes!) Can't name one? Let me help.
Here's a list of every Robert DeNiro performance from 2000-2010.
The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle (2000)
Men of Honor (2000)
Meet the Parents (2000)
15 Minutes (2001)
The Score (2001)
Showtime (2002)
City by the Sea (2002)
Analyze that (2002)
Godsend (2004)
Shark Tale (2004)
Meet the Fockers (2004)
The Bridge of San Luis Rey (2004)
Hide and Seek (2005)
Arthur and the Invisibles (2006)
The Good Shepherd (2006)
Stardust (2007)
What Just Happened (2008)
Righteous Kill (2008)
Everybody's Fine (2009)
Machete (2010)
Stone (2010)
Little Fockers (2010)
I guess we should have been clued in that something was wrong when he involved himself with Rocky and Bullwinkle. Ok, if we ignore that major blight, this decade didn't start off too horribly. Meet the Parents is a funny enough film and I understand why he chose that role. I have no beef there. The Score was a pretty decent film. Then, uh-oh, there it is: Showtime. That horrible movie he did with Eddie Murphy that was supposed to be a comedy. His career gets pretty off track soon after. The Good Shepherd is his one saving grace in this decade and perhaps a last ditch attempt to hold on to his legacy. Despite the fact it met with mediocre reviews and box-office receipts, he still managed to preserve some prestige by directing the story. After that, it's shitty film after shitty film.
Still trying to reason out his choices? Let's contrast it by looking at every film he did in the 1990s.
Goodfellas (1990)
Awakenings (1990)
Guilty by Suspicion (1991)
Backdraft (1991)
Cape Fear (1991)
Mistress (1992)
Night and the City (1992)
Mad Dog and Glory (1993)
The Boy's Life (1993)
A Bronx Tale (1993)
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)
Casino (1995)
Heat (1995)
The Fan (1996)
Sleepers (1996)
Marvin's Room (1996)
Cop Land (1997)
Wag the Dog (1997)
Jackie Brown (1997)
Great Expectation (1998)
Ronin (1998)
Analyze This (1999)
Flawless (1999)
Not all of these films met with financial success, but most met with critical. In fact, the only films on this list considered disappointments (or downright bad) are Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and The Fan. Yet, even he didn't get slammed in those critical drubbings. He was considered the one saving grace of Frankenstein (although I think the film is underrated but we can discuss separately). And, of course, there are the decades of work prior with Mean Streets, Godfather 2, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, King of Comedy, etc…
De Niro was never a classic Hollywood star in the way that others from his generation were (like Jack Nicholson). Up until about the mid 90s, his star power alone did not carry a film. He was a character actor. Perhaps the most famous character actor that's ever worked in Hollywood. Beyond his method preparations, he also stuck to smaller, riskier, bolder, dramatic fare. He chose films with quality directors like Scorsese, Coppola, Tarantino, Mann, and Bertolucci just to name a few. He picked roles that would continue to hone his acting abilities. Even though Neil McCauley might be his last memorable lead dramatic role, he still had some great smaller roles in the late 90s. That was an excellent decade for him.
So where the hell did everything go wrong? Let's glance back over these two decades and analyze the numbers. The answer can be found in 1999 and 2000. Oddly enough, the career killers came with perhaps his two biggest financial successes: Analyze This and Meet the Parents. The films themselves aren't career killers. They were 100+ million dollar grossing films and are actually pretty decent. With them, De Niro finally became a box office draw. His name could now sell a film just by appearing in font on a poster. Perhaps that's what De Niro had always wanted? The roles in both of these films were essentially caricatures of himself. Audiences love that infamous beaming De Niro grin and that's what he gave them. And there his fall from grace began.
From these films on, he seemed to cash in on their success and his mug. Had had no problem collecting huge paychecks for their unnecessary (and flat out horrible) sequels. He continued on with lame comedies (like Showtime). A lot of gifted actors who end up becoming Hollywood stars have adhered to the "one for them, one for me" motto. You do one film for the paycheck and help the studio out with some profit. Then you do the next one for yourself, an artsy choice designed to garner acclaim. Brad Pitt is a wonderful example of this type of actor. Tom Cruise used to follow this logic before he went crazy. De Niro's got the smarts and Hollywood know-how to do this as well. Problem is he's not. You want to do a film like "Showtime," ok. But then you better follow it up with the type of role that made you an acting giant in the industry to being with. Instead, De Niro continued on with stale dramatic works that might as well have been made for television. Honestly, would you have believed if I told you 10 years ago that Al Pacino and De Niro would team up again (Righteous Kill) and no one would care? I don't blame Pacino. Besides a few questionable film choices over the past 10 years, there's no question that he still has the ability to choose good roles. Pacino still even does work on the stage.
The fact that De Niro was originally supposed to play Daniel Day Lewis's role in Gangs of New York and Martin Sheen's role in The Departed makes his career choices of the last 10 years even harder to swallow. Has Scorsese been that integral to De Niro's success? I'm starting to think so. De Niro's a loose cannon in his roles these days. He never seems to know when to shut off. It's one thing to be a great actor stuck in a bad movie. Robert De Niro is actually giving horrible performances in these bad movies. In Little Fockers, one of the jokes in the trailers has Ben Stiller stabbing a syringe into DeNiro's erection (in front of a little kid no less). I wonder how the young De Niro that won an Oscar for playing Jake LaMotta would have reacted to this footage.
De Niro seems to get off on playing a caricature of the roles that made him famous. When he makes that infamous beaming grin now, it doesn't seem natural. Whenever he makes a facial expression, he seems to be giving an impression of himself no different than a million other hack impressionists that gloat about their "DeNiro" give (yes, I'm one of these hacks, too). De Niro is following the same career path as Nicolas Cage at this moment. Cage (who has talents to rival De Niro and I will back that up if necessary), has been playing off his celebrity over the past 10 years. As a result, he's kind of become a joke. De Niro's doing the same thing but he's in a worse position. Cage is still young enough to turn it around (and after Bad Lieutenant, I have faith he will). De Niro, not to be morbid, aint getting any younger. I've read decent things about his performance in Stone, but that means nothing when you immediately follow it up with Little Fockers. Hollywood is all about the "What have you done for me lately?" mentality.
Normally, at this point in an essay, I'd offer points of suggestion or improvement for my subject. Sorry, Bobby. I got nothing for you. The damage done with these career choices simply cannot be repaired. When most of the younger generation that goes to the movies knows DeNiro as the "Focker" guy, how can his reputation and legacy be fixed? Even if I were to play all his Scorsese work to these kids, eyelids pried open Clockwork Orange style, would that erase their vision of him? Does he even deserve redemption? Ok, he was the best part of Machete. I'll give him that. But, Christ, should that have even been a career choice? Don't give me the bullshit excuse he did it for fun. He's been doing that for over 10 years now and, quite frankly, we're not having fun. Re-teaming with Scorsese isn't going to be enough. A new generation doesn't know him for this work or any other he's done with reputable directors in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. His situation is bad. Real bad.
