Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
scott@scottlongonline.com
At the beginning of Keanu Reeves' career, I understood what he had to offer, as he was the quintessential stoner dude. He played these teen roles solidly, as he demonstrated in River's Edge and Permanent Record. Then came the wild success of Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, which cemented his natural instincts of playing a somewhat dim-witted dude. Nothing wrong with beginning your career playing this type of character, as both Sean Penn and Nicholas Cage broke onto the scene doing the same type of bro. The difference between these actors is that Penn and Cage (not so much lately, though) are capable of bringing many different shades to their movie roles, while Reeves, as much he might try, is still Theodore Logan.
When Reeves has been successful in a film, he has been given a role that allows him not to stretch from this type of character. During the first few years of his career, Reeves was cast well, playing surfer dude types in Point Break and My Own Private Idaho. Then came 1992, when Francis Ford Coppola made Dracula. With a cast featuring Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins, it would have seemed to be a slam dunk movie classic... except that Coppola made a casting mistake almost as tragic as when he hired his daughter Sofia for Godfather 3, by choosing Reeves in one of the major roles. Having Keanu Reeves share a scene with Hopkins and Oldman is on par with Jimi Hendrix and Ginger Baker starting a super group, only to have it fronted by Yoko Ono.
Here is the major question I have about Reeves' career. How is that with so many superior choices available has Reeves continued to get major parts in roles that he is woefully ill-equipped to succeed in? He has played a quarterback in The Replacements, a lawyer in The Devil's Advocate, and a doctor in Something's Gotta Give. In these pictures, he was paired with acting giants Gene Hackman, Al Pacino, and Jack Nicholson, respectively. The talents of these actors and some other fine supporting performances made each of these movies watchable, but the laughable casting of Reeves made each scene he was in seem implausible.
Not only is Reeves incapable of playing a character with a job which takes even a modicum of intelligence, but he is just as dismal in a love story. I recently caught on cable, a recent movie he did with Sandra Bullock titled Lake House. In the convoluted romance, Reeves plays an architect. No, this is not a misprint. There is no way I would live in a house, be defended in a court case, have my tonsils taken out or even root for a team that was quarterbacked by Keanu Reeves, but someone in Hollywood continues to cast him in these type of roles. I realize that the 1994 blockbuster Speed made Sandra Bullock a superstar, but thinking that the chemistry between her and Reeves needed to be explored again was misguided at best. The elements that made Speed great was the script, the directing, and the charismatic performances of Bullock and Dennis Hopper. Reeves didn't have to show much more emotion than he had to as Neo in The Matrix.
The Matrix was another movie where the script, special effects, and supporting characters drove the movie along. The Wachowski Brothers did use Reeves' talents perfectly in the first of The Matrix trilogy, though, as the science fiction Blade Runner-like world the film took place in didn't need a lead actor who offered much acting range. The Neo character was robot-like in his presence. Reeves' angular good looks and shock of black hair was an important piece in the gorgeous production design. This is the only adult role I can think of that Reeves' acting moves the story along.
I realize that part of Keannu Reeves' continuing career has to do with him being seen as a bankable star, domestically and foreign. I would argue that few of the successful films he has been in have had much to do with him. I know he wrecks a movie for me, almost every time he appears on-screen. I understood the casting of him as the teen-aged, dim-wit, but I just don't understand how major studios and major directors continue to want to cast him playing characters who would need to be able to portray a modicum of intelligence. PLEASE EXPLAIN Keannu Reeves.
keanu reeves' universal character is just the stoner, grown up. he's fried. he doesn't care about his role, he doesn't care that he's a bad actor. that's the marketability. a taste of performance nihilism.
His innate blank-slate qualities -- his essential lack of force as a screen persona -- made him ideal to play a possibly drugged-out, certainly sun-deprived archetype in one of the epochal movies of the last 20 years, The Matrix. I didn't like that movie as well as some people do, but it is perhaps the most influential action movie since Terminator 2, and Reeves was in it. Since he was already a star at that point, he got more than just a little reflected glory.
And there you have it, the Keanu Reeves story.
Is it that he is supposed to be playing 'the dude' version of an architect, lawyer, doctor, etc?
His performance as a lawyer was one of the two stereotypes that exist for new lawyers; the greedy, cutthroat backstabber (have fun with him as your lawyer) and the naive, quite, talented lawyer that wants to stick his his morals (good luck being one of those lawyers). In no way would I describe the shared screen time with Deniro (or a young Charlize Theron for that matter) laughable. Was he as good as Deniro? Of course not, but quite honestly, the devil role allowed more interpretation, at least in my opinion. Reeves had a role, played it well (IMO), and contributed positively to the movie.
I haven't seen the lakehouse. Not too interested.
If this is really only against Reeves being casted as a "professional", that is a pretty narrow and somewhat silly frustration with an actor who I would say is distinctly underrated and has shown good versatility for comedy (Bill and Ted), romance (A Walk In the Clouds), and action (Speed, Matrix Trilogy). Perhaps instead of being an architect, he should be, oh, I don't know, a retired fireman? Would that significantly alter how we perceive his performance in a movie? I doubt it. He gets those roles because in the situations that the "professional" aspect is important, it matches with his natural character traits (emotionless, naive, etc.), or it is entirely irrelevant to the film.
No producer out there is going to get in trouble for putting Keanu Reeves in a movie, and that's often enough to land you a pretty rewarding career.
(Yes, I'm too lazy to look up who it is. And I should know it...I actually own the soundtrack to the movie-which I saw on my first date.)
I've never minded Keanu, but I'm biased (see above). To me, his most shockingly inappropriate role came in 'Much Ado About Nothing.' Reeves + Shakespeare = high unintentional comedy.
FWIW, my uncle played Keanu's father in the Bill & Ted series. Hal Landon Jr. said Reeves was a helluva nice guy. Again, FWIW.
I understand the scoring well quotient being part of who you hire, but looking at Reeves' past 10 years, outside of the Matrix movies, these flicks are not exactly blockbusters.
In regards to The Gift, I never said he couldn't play stoopid.
Most of his career still really puzzles me.
And I'm 100% with you on the miscasting of Reeves in Much Ado, even though the character calls for something of a self-contained, self-possessed actor. Reeves wasn't so much self-contained as completely empty.
much ado would've been better if he'd done the same.
But it may have been better if Keanu had played one of the comic relief parts.
Mr. Reeves will be working in movies for many years to come, while you sit here, nowhere land, being nothing and doing a good job at being nothing.
TO paraphrase Lenny Bruce: "He's a bad actor? He's got over $100m, that's how goddamn bad he is!"
I'm as baffled as you are, Scott.
Apparently millions of fans, hollywood directors, producers and other actors are a helluva lot smarter than you will ever be.
The fact that he has millions of fans has nothing to do with his acting ability. The fact that he is a favorite of producers has nothing to do with that either. He is just a bad actor. I would put him right there with Matthew " The Exercise King " Mc-whatever his name is when it comes to acting ability.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZAr9E8i3ng
I have nothing against Reeves on a personal level, but his continued career is very puzzling to me.
Seriously though, absolutely the WORST attempt at a British accent.
"I have offended you with my ignorance, Count... forgive me" ...and then insert "Duuuuuude". I was expecting that to come out of his mouth. Horrible, horrible acting job!
(but the fact that Tom Waits was in the film was VERY cool!!!)
I happen to really like Keanu Reeves myself. He can convey emotion on film without chewing the scenery.
Here's the real issue with Keanu Reeves: his skill as an actor doesn't come from the delivery of his lines. Rather, his best skill is the ability to convey loads of information and emotion through saying nothing at all. His weakness is with lines, everybody knows this. He doesn't have the ability to deliver lines without sounding like a surfer dude. But physically, he stands pretty well with some of the highest caliber actors around.
Is he often miscast? Absolutely. But so is Steven Seagal, and he's an actual martial artist. Women love him, Matrix nerds worship him, and directors enjoy working with him. All that adds up to both marketing and production success. So it's no wonder that Hollywood likes to trot him out there on a regular basis. His big budget movies don't tank (with the possible exception of The Replacements), and he's continued to improve every year.
Even if his actual roles are poor, you have to acknowledge that he's made significant progress since his Bill and Ted days.
I agree with shyvix, if you don't like him as an actor why bother going to his movies? Or is your "comedy" to offend whomever you can? I find nothing funny or clever in your review of his work, it's rather boring and same ole shit different critic.
In a movie like Scanner Darkly, which is an experimental film using animation, Reeves works okay. Maybe Keanu would have been good in silent films, but last time I checked, he just appears in talkies.
a) KR is very successful.
b) He has been a featured actor in films seen by millions.
c) He's easy to work with because
d) He's a great guy. Alex Winters remains a long-time friend; KR makes a point to appear or assist in Winters' films. Also, 12
e) We haven't seen the last of him, not by a longshot.
See how much we agree on?
Please Explain is a great vehicle because it makes a fan analyze and describe why someone is deserving of acclaim. Check out the Whoopi Goldberg PE if you want to see how I fared on the other side of Scott's argument.
We can defend those who are criticized by engaging in conversation--assessing the critique and responding accordingly--or we can just shout out "YOU SUCK!" at the top of our lungs. I think Scott is going for the former but keep in mind, he is a stand-up comic so barbs will be tossed.
Thanks for being a part of Juice.
I'm serious. There is not doubt in my mind that if Keanu were born over a century ago, TCM would devote block days to him.
Reeves is good at playing that very casual surfer dude, but compared to Depp, Cage and Damon he is a step below as far as being a craftsman is concerned.
Did you ever stop to think he was so good at Bill and Ted because he was ACTING good, we fans who know him better than you, know he's NOTHING like Ted and is very smart and not surfer dude one iota. That stuck with him because he was so good at acting that part.
Cage? Cage is the same in every role, Cage plays Cage.
Valley Girl
Raising Arizona
Moonlighting
Vampire Kiss
Wild at Heart
Red Rock West
Honeymoon in Vegas
Leaving Las Vegas
Has any actor taken so many chances in his performances during a 12 year period, as Cage did between 1983-1995?)
Now he did the Rock and the Michael Bay experience seems to have wrecked him for the most part, since, but Cage was pretty brilliant the first half of his career. You can't possibly think that Reeves' could have been half as good in the movies I listed above? Reeves' would have been good in Valley Girl, but as the female role.
Nice piece of didactic paternalism, there... After all, those people are Keanu fans; how could they understand the meaning of "Please Explain"?
Cut the crap; with such an offensive, scornful, biased piece of trite text, were you expecting for people with a different point of view to come here and discuss anything at all? Of course not. You just took the time to secrete some bile, hiding behind a pretence analysis and a fake sense of curiosity.
Besides, it's not like fans owe you explanations; especially when your "critique" shows such an obviously autistic and prejudiced grasp of the subject at hand. You actually display astonishment over the notion some might not agree with you... Attempting to discuss anything would be a complete loss of time, not just considering your attitude, but also taking in to account the ridiculing reception people with different opinions have around here.
I think that Reeve doesn't deserve all this bash around him, he's better than 90 % of actor and stars in better films.
The fact is when you are choosing a film you check the director, the story and the actors and actresses who playing in it.
For example when I see Demi Moore on a poster, I don't waste my time, I know it will be crappy or unwatchable.
Keanu Reeve in the other hand constantly plays in good film, this man is making good choices : starring in The devil's advocate instead of speed II, reading the matrix script, my own private idaho, even point break is a classic now.
Did you know that speed was not that good before he was in the project ? He's the one who ask some changes, and that's why Joss Whedon rewrote the script.
I think also that he's better actor than a lot of you think, the last scene in A scanner Darkly was so touching when he picks a flower, it was a moment of grace, really.
He's not the best actor in the world but he's at least a decent one choosing interesting projects.
You mentioned pretty much all the movies I liked Keanu in. I notice you don't bring up any of the films where he portrays someone who has job where a college degree is needed. Most of his recent films he has chosen these type roles, with tragic results for the film.
Now on to Cell. Look at you using your big words. As someone with an autistic child, I guess I'm prone to that way of thinking. I guess I don't have a monopoly on offering up comments that secrete bile, after reading your work. I'm not going to defend my Please Explain series here except to say what I the whole concept has provided some great dialogue among the readers. I still don't get how Reeves' continues to get roles in most of his films, but a couple of people here have helped me understand the Reeves' phenomenon a bit better, despite my didactic paternalistic tendencies.
Gov. Arnold is obviously a bright guy, but he never played any parts where he was out of his element, either.
Keanu Reeves has never impressed me as being particularly intelligent when interviewed. I'm not saying you have to have a college degree to play these type of roles, but you should at least be able to portray intelligence. Keanu doesn't. Stick to potheads, surfer dudes, and science fiction like robotic characters and I buy him. Otherwise, he wrecks the movie.
Scott => I went to college and the first thing I learn it's doesn't make someone more intelligent. It give you the opportunitie to learn more but doesn"t make you clever.
I kinda admire people like Reeves who are self-educated, they don"t have those walls who doesn't allow us to think freely.
Someone brought up the movie the Gift as a positive performance by him. I thought he was decent, but once again, he wasn't portraying someone who is supposed to be intelligent---he is an abusive husband. While I think there were many actors who could have shined in such a showy role, he didn't make me hate the movie, like he has in flicks where he is completely miscast in the role.
to debate anything. You just want people to corroborate with what you are thinking. But, being a fan of Keanu Reeves for more than 10 years, I have to say that it's impossible to read so much mis-information and preconception and still silent. So,
I'll give you my view of him.
Keanu Reeves is, maybe, one of the most difficult Hollywood actors to define today. And not because he has no talent, but
because he is a "different" talent. When you ask for people to explain his appeal you are asking for multiple answers and
reactions because that's what he provokes in people, different sentiments.
When Keanu started he was a guy full of energy on screen, with a strange accent, an androgynous and different beauty from the occidental standards e that little thing called charism that many just only dream to have a bit. Many of his early friends in Toronto say that when he was in acting classes all eyes would be only on him. And since that time some think he is great and some think he is bad.
I never saw an actor to get so much hate and love at same time and for so long (more than 20 years). When people love him people LOVE him. The hate comes in the same level. They truly HATE him. And why? Because he is what you want him to be. Some jounalist described him a while ago like a "blank canvas where people can project their fantasies". Some women describe him as a lost puppy with soulful eyes that they want to nanny. Some women see him as the example of a sensitive man who is always there for them. Some see him as a hero and sex God. Others see him as asexual as a plank can be. Others he is from another planet or the anti-christ (there was even a site dedicated to prove that!). I am talking about personal traits but those clearly apply to his career. People see the same scene and some see great acting, some see poor acting, some see a plank of wood.
The fact is that Keanu is so inscrutable that he lets audience projects their own feelings and views on him. I'm not the first person to say it, many critics already perceived the same thing. As an example of your mis-conceptions, you asked why he was hired to play an architect in The Lake House if there were others who could pull off that role better. What are you trying to say, that someone needs a special characteristic to play a normal "architect"? Why? The problem is that you have the "Keanu is dumb" image in your head and you will never be convinced by him in anything aside the brainless Ted-like figure you identify him with!
And you are completely missing the point because that movie wasn't about him being a normal architect, but about someone with an open mind enough to believe in love across time without ever questioning it. It was about a man who wanted to be loved by his father at any cost and that was at his side even when rejected. It was about someone who would wait for love. Not a normal man, maybe the ideal man that women dream about. And having seen women reactions to his character (as well his supporting turn in Something Gotta Give) he achieved everything the movie asked for. Women dream about him, that's for sure.
So, he can convince us that he is a romantic lead (you can't say that about many other actors, even Oscar winners, and Russel Crowe comes to mind). He did very well in comedy as you can see in his turn in Bill and Ted, it's sequel, in Parenthood, I Love You to Death and Thumbsucker (where his supporting role received great reviews). He can make drama as well, as he was really solid in River's Edge, Permanent Record, My Own Private Idaho, The Last Time I Commited Suicide, Hardball, The Gift and A Scanner Darkly. People believe him as an action hero, as he already proved in Point Break, Speed, The Matrix Trilogy and Constantine.
Of course he has his mistakes and bad movies, but who doesn't?
Did you already gave a look at his resume? He isn't in only a good bunch of movies, he is in movies that were remarkable in their times, atemporal movies, like River's Edge (very distant of those "brat pack" feel good movies of the 80s). Bill and Ted (even their slang remains cool until now), Idaho (for introducing the gay relationship waaaay before the Brockeback
Montains of life), Point Break (as the silly action turn that people hate but love to watch), in Speed (setting the new action role model as the sensitive and human hero in charge), and The Matrix (that doesn't need any more explanations, simply changed the way sci-fi is made in Hollywood and Neo became a classic hero).
He makes choices that no one expects, as choosing to make Devil's Advocate instead of Speed 2, doing a little indie like Thumbsucker or doing the not conventional Scanner Darkly. His choices shows he is ahead of his time and maybe it's natural that they are not welcome by some people. He clearly isn't just your "beauty and dumb actor who will make success and disappear". He is in the business for more than 20 years, working with some of the best people in industry. You can't just explain that because of his beauty or because he is a good guy to work with. People see talent in him and know that he can reach an audience, that he can convince others that the role he is playing is real.
Someone stated that his voice is a problem, and I have to agree at certain level as he has a very deep voice that could, maybe, don't translate the real emotion that the character is going through. But...you can see it in his face! In his eyes! I remember a scene in Little Buddha, a movie only worth because of the scenes with Siddartha ( although some poke fun of it because they can't understand the traditions and beliefs of those people). There is a scene where Siddartha sees the real world for the first time, where he sees poverty, suffering , misery and death. He doesn't say anything, but you can see in his eyes everything. He doesn't need to say a word, he shows it.
Another quality he has is to keep an extreme innocence in his eyes that really lead us to believe in what he is seeing. As
when Siddartha sees the world, when Kevin Lomax sees the truth in Devils Advocate, when Neo sees the world outside the Matrix. You believe he is realizing the truth, you believe in his eyes.
And people come to say to me that the man has no expression! Why, because he doesn't twinks his eyes and forehead like Sean Penn does? Because he can't keep that eternal smirk as George Clooney does? I don't do that either and I'm not a bit bothered by that and I don't think anyone will come to me and say that I'm not expressing myself enough when I'm crying. For Christ sake, normal people don't over react! Much more men who tends to be more restrained about sentiments.
Still, about the voice, that profound tone is very suitable in moments like the one where Bob Arctor (A Scanner Darkly) questions his existence. It's full of sadness, dispair, hate, doubt. It's perfect.
Keanu transmits to me the reactions that a normal and REAL person would have. Amazement, shyness, dispair, goodness, happiness, love, depression. I see people act that way. I believe what he shows to me on the screen. I feel for his characters and I understand what they are going through. I relate to them.
Some things that bothered me Mr Long , reading your replies, is how made up your mind is about Keanu. You just can't accept that people actually think he is any good. You just doesn't listen and will always have an excuse to bash him, not only for his acting, but attacking him personally. If you just say that you think he has no expression, whatever, it would be
acceptable, as I said people have different reactions to his acting style. But most of your posts are "personal attacks" to
Mr Reeves based in your preconceptions and that is unacceptable.
When you attack his intelligence you are acting like you knew him personally. You don't! I wonder how many interviews,
serious ones, did you read about him. I bet not much. He is a complex human being that CAN'T be read in a few sentences. If you really knew about Keanu Reeves as you want us to believe, you would had read the many articles where actors, directors and producers praise his intelligence. You would know that basically no one in Hollywood who actually worked with him have a single bad word to say about his intelligence, moral and work ethics. Well on the contrary. And, please, don't come with that story that everyone in Hollywood lies about co-stars because it would be impossible for so many to lie for so many years, always saying the same words about a person. I could show to you many examples of praises for his talent and intelligence, but I just remembered a few words Joss Whedon had about him some months ago, while talking in a seminar at Wesleyan University. Below is a transcript taken from a Whedon fan-site. The seminar was called "The Importance of Being Keanu":
---------
"Joss began by sharing his thoughts about Keanu Reeves as an actor; sounds like an odd way to start but it was quite lovely. He explained how Keanu has mastered his own career by embodying a rare and authentic style all his own typified by a sense of compassion for humanity and a subtle detachment. He shared a story about when he was "fixing" the script for Speed and working with Keanu on the character, how Keanu had spent some time with detectives and law enforcement to get a sense of the character and he said he was struck by how polite they were. How they all used "sir" and "Ma'am." Joss was impressed by how Keanu objected to certain lines and actions in the script because they seemed outside of what the character would truly do. He explained how Keanu's choices of roles has been indicative of his style and how he has kept his private life private. He described Keanu as having an international appeal both by his "pretty" and by his multi-ethnic aesthetic. Ultimately, Keanu is the perfect Neo."
"The Keanu panel was very interesting. I think we all were surprised by how Joss took a topic - which in some ways we were all expecting to be a joke - and created some interesting insights - both about Keanu as an actor and as an example being the type of person who can have a positive influence on the Hollywood machine. By looking at how Keanu embodies a sense of "otherness" (not stereotypically male, having a feminine aspect to his presence, having different intonation, speech
patterns, and physicality from what you would normally expect from a Hollywood Action Star), you start to see that it allows people to identify and connect with him as an "everyman" – which is why he is so successful in his performance as Neo in the Matrix. Joss also commended Keanu for his sense of integrity - as a movie star not running after fame, but willing to choose projects that he wants to do, that he believes in. The Hollywood culture is built by those who work in the industry as part of it. The Importance of Being Keanu is that if more people in the industry were thoughtful about their work as an artist, their integrity as a person, their substance as storytellers – rather than chasing fame or that next mega-blockbuster movie – the culture of the Hollywood industry could change for the better."
---------
So, to finish it, I sincerely hope you can see that, YES, do exist people who actually LIKE/LOVE Keanu Reeves' acting. That
think he is an intense and intelligent person, people who can differentiate a character from the human being playing it, who can see beyond the preconception, who can see the talent that, I tell you, is there. I know I'm not alone in this sentiment, and I see no better support to that than his successful career and big following he conquered around the world.
Best Regards.
Sandra
Thanks
Sandra
When I read about people bad mouthing Keanu or not getting him, I always think of the article Charles Taylor wrote for Salon called "In Defense of Keanu Reeves". His words really express why Keanu has been so successful in his career without some people understanding his appeal.
I always chuckle when people think he's a California surfer dude because he's really a middle class guy from Toronto.
Rating 1 star by Peter Travers of Rolling Stone
Talk about bad timing. Keanu Reeves plays an architect who loves a doctor played by Sandra Bullock. And they both love a house made of glass and set on stilts over a lake outside of Chicago. The snag? She lives in 2006 and he lives in 2004. But they write letters to each other and share the same dog (don't ask). What follows is a series of plot contrivances that are impossible to understand much less to swallow. Reeves looks less chisled and more human than he has of late, but his acting still has a long way to go to qualify as serviceable. Bullock, who showed surprising grit in Crash, can count this as a career step backward. Directed by Alejandro Agresti (Valentin) from a script by playwright David Auburn, taking a mighty fall from his days of winning a Pulitzer for Proof -- this bastard child of The Notebook and Somewhere in Time left me feeling that I'd drowned in a lake of romantic swill. I can't believe that even the most rabid chick-flick masochists wouldn't gag on it.
PS. It's Please Explain.
Something in the way he moves
In defense of Keanu Reeves.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Charles Taylor
April 29, 1999 | Is there anyone in the movies who allows the camera to drink him in the way Keanu Reeves does? Movies have always yielded to performers with charisma and beauty. Sometimes the mechanics of a movie -- plot, dialogue -- can seem frozen for an instant as the camera basks in the person in front of it. There have been histories of the movies written in terms of genres and filmmakers. Perhaps one needs to be written in terms of erotics, the moments that break movies down in our minds into images of faces, bits of movement, a snatch of music on the soundtrack. Those moments seem to reveal other, more delicate, movies inside the one we're watching, as if we were in the midst of reading a novel and a symbolist poem had floated up between the lines.
"The Matrix" has already broken down in my head to moments of Keanu Reeves striding through crowded city streets, dank back alleys and the decaying rooms of ghost town tenements. Reeves' movements have always conveyed an unsettled mixture of eagerness and wariness (just as the combination of his muscular build and fine-boned face convey a mixture of strength and grace). Maybe it's the way he seems to be led forward by his shoulders as he walks, or the way he has of looking from side to side as he strides forward, scanning the scene he's already trudged into. If the film's protagonist, Neo, is a role that Reeves seems born to play, it's because it's the one that allows us to revel in his physicality, which has always been such a strong component of his acting.
Movement is accepted as part of the performance of a dancer or a comic. And certainly talking about the physicality of, say, Olivier as Henry V, or Kenneth Branagh as Hamlet, wouldn't surprise anyone. So why does it still startle some highbrow moviegoers and critics that, in an action movie, the way an actor moves is the performance? In her Entertainment Weekly review of "The Matrix," Lisa Schwarzbaum claims she "can't get [Reeves] in focus as an actor," but as for his "fine form," well that she can "clearly see and appreciate."
I don't think that the way Keanu Reeves looks or the way he moves is all there is to appreciate about the guy. But I often get the feeling that admitting to enjoying his physicality means that I'm failing my critic's responsibility of treating cinema as a serious art form, that having a sensual or kinetic response means abandoning intellect, that I'm forgetting to maintain that even failed or boring or pretentious art is more worthy of serious consideration than successful entertainment.
Let's face it: Love him or hate him, nobody wants to envision the movies without Keanu Reeves. If it weren't for him, what would snobs do to amuse themselves?
No doubt there are people who just don't dig Keanu Reeves. But I've almost never heard anyone content to say they merely dislike him: They loathe him. Subjected to more ridicule than perhaps any other movie star, Reeves is attacked with the enthusiasm people reserve for someone who truly drives them crazy. "Young, dumb and full of cum," is the way Reeves' hard-ass FBI boss describes the character he plays in "Point Break," a line that the Keanu haters themselves might have coined. I'm guessing, but I suspect that part of the vitriol directed at Reeves stems from the way he stirs up all the old arguments about the differences between actors and movie stars. Reeves is also a repository both for the lingering resentment over the attention and devotion that beauty continues to command in pop culture and the way in which he represents a subversion of traditional sex roles
In "Girlfriend," her new book about cross-dressing, Holly Brubach argues that drag sends conventional sex roles topsy-turvy, that while maintaining traditional images of femininity it "upholds the very definitions that it subverts; it is at once radical and deeply conventional." I'd argue the same applies to Reeves. Looking at good-looking people has been one of the great pleasures of the movies since the silents. But the performers who have offered themselves most willingly to the camera have almost always been women. Their seeming passivity has disguised the position of power they hold over the viewer. Ready for worship, they have presented themselves as if they were the sacred icons of pop culture. Men, on the other hand, have traditionally acted to deflect attention from themselves, as if doing anything less would seem unmanly or feminine.
Reeves is one of the few contemporary male stars whose presence acknowledges that people are out there in the dark looking at him. He's not narcissistic, just comfortable with himself, and his slight languidness encourages looking. That willingness to be looked at evokes -- in women as well as men -- a homosexual panic. I don't mean that as a sop to the rumors that have hovered around Reeves' sexuality -- though it's significant that we can conceive of a man comfortable with his good looks only as being gay -- but as a suggestion of how some people still feel threatened by men who don't conform to their ideas of what men should be.
For someone who's been most successful as the star of action movies, Reeves hasn't shown any interest in macho bluster. He may be playing hot dogs in "Point Break" and "Speed," but he doesn't swagger, not even in the scenes with his leading ladies. Like other actors of his generation -- Eric Stoltz, James LeGros, John Cusack -- Reeves is remarkably generous, even deferential, to the women he plays opposite. Look at the scenes between him and Sandra Bullock in "Speed." Reeves doesn't play them as a testosterone-jazzed cop out to show who's in charge -- he treats her as an equal partner in disaster, encouraging, even leaning on her, without once seeming less heroic or masculine.
It's surprising then that audiences that enjoy that sort of gender switcheroo haven't embraced Reeves. Maybe it's because they're the same kind of audiences that buy into fashionable notions about beauty being a false, oppressive standard. Reeves demonstrates that movies have never abandoned their veneration of the beautiful, and he does so at a time when that impulse is deeply suspect.
A film critic I know recently said to me that he thinks people look at Reeves and see nothing going on. He said they weren't looking too hard. Instead of the "serene blankness" Schwarzbaum described, I have almost never seen Reeves play a scene -- regardless of whether he or the movie was good or bad -- where he didn't seem completely concentrated. That commitment may have sometimes worked against him, leading him to appear overly serious in a crummy movie. But I'd prefer that to an actor condescending to a scene by signaling his contempt. Or to the furious scenery chewing that is often praised in the movies as fine acting -- Jennifer Jason Leigh in "Georgia" or "Kansas City"; John Malkovich in "Jennifer Eight" or "Rounders"; Gary Oldman in almost anything.
That sort of showy self-consciousness is often mistaken for off-screen intelligence. Unfortunately, people still assume that actors are the characters they play. Reeves is often talked about as if he is the slow-witted dude he played in the "Bill and Ted" movies. It's almost always his voice and the accents that he affects that's used as evidence against him. Sure, his British accent in "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was noticeably strained, and it's often counted against him. But nobody was good in that movie. (Coppola seemed more interested in his production design than in directing the actors.) If actors are often confused with the roles they play, they are also held accountable for the follies of their directors. Which is also what happened to Reeves in "Little Buddha": Any actor would have looked ridiculous done up in eyeliner and prancing around as Siddhartha. And yet, who could blame Reeves for wanting to work with Bernardo Bertolucci, especially after being so consistently mocked as a nontalent.
Dismissed as a slacker Ken doll whose work has been mostly teen comedies and action films, Reeves has been even more ridiculed when he's attempted to stretch himself. Reeves played Hamlet in a Winnipeg, Manitoba, stage production and received good reviews, but most of the attendant press about the performance mocked the very idea of him attempting the role. As Don John in Branagh's film of "Much Ado About Nothing," Reeves took a functional, nondescript villain and gave him an undercurrent of malevolence that the movie's brightness couldn't entirely dispel. (The element of inexplicability Reeves brought to the don's treachery made me wonder whether Shakespeare might have used the part as a first sketch for Iago, a character he wrote three years later.) The reviews were predictably nasty, but it's always a giveaway when people spend more time deriding the notion of a performance -- Keanu Reeves in Shakespeare! -- than the specifics of the actual acting.
Movies are only occasionally high art. And even when they are, they need the link to their tradition of sensual pleasure that Reeves stands for. Performers with his sort of charismatic sexiness can make you feel plugged in, alive to that pleasure. In a world of movies that are too often (to steal a phrase from a Mekons song) the empire of the senseless, Reeves is the red pill.
salon.com | April 29, 1999
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About the writer
Charles Taylor is a Salon contributing writer. His Home Movies video column appears every other Monday in Salon Arts & Entertainment.
I've never been a fan of his movie reviewing and his commentary that Gary Oldman is a bad actor or that John Malkovich wasn't good in Rounders tells me all I need to know about Mr. Taylor.
I guess it comes down to a matter of what you want from an actor or a performance. Some of the keanu-maniacs have helped me understand why he has had more success than I was able to originally oontemmplate, but I still don't understand why any casting director would put him in a role where he would play an intellectual or an authority figure. I buy him in these type roles about as much as I would Pauly Shore.
btw Taylor is highly respected critic, more than you will ever be and very well known, unlike you.
Explain Keanu? I wouldn't waste my time on pinheads like you. It's best to just observe your ignorance while you spout off insults. So go ahead, continue to show us how unclever, un original and small you are.
Mr. Reeves will be working in movies for many years to come, while you sit here, nowhere land, being nothing and doing a good job at being nothing.
(Here was my response.)
Here are my credentials. Nationally touring standup comediean for the past 15 years. Writer for the NFL on Fox for the past 5 years. And above all, a member of one America's finest blog collectives in America, the Baseball Toaster!!! Hip Hip Hooray for Me!!!I have nothing against Reeves on a personal level, but his continued career is very puzzling to me.
(here is more from Carmen)
Well I'm convinced Scott is a very shallow person.
(and now)
Speaking of intelligence, I guess it all boils down to you are the one who doesn't have much
btw Taylor is highly respected critic, more than you will ever be and very well known, unlike you.
My final response to Carmen follows now.
I don't judge people on if they are famous or not, but if we are playing that game, I could argue that I'm more well-known in certain circles than Charles Taylor. Now just because I have performed standup comedy in almost every major club in the country and I have appeared on TV, and written for TV doesn't make me great---I mean Keanu Reeves makes huge money, has world-wide fame and for the most part is a shitty actor.
I don't get the magic Keanu holds, but I guess he connects with some people like Sandra and Subrosa, who seem to be intelligent women. Of course he also connects with dried twats like yourself, Carmen, who throw out vitriolic slams at someone like myself, despite me never saying anything personally inflammatory about you. I guess that will end here.
I am well-known at my shows for being a human torch on hecklers who attempt to heckle. I would tread very carefully at coming at me, as I've tired of holding my tongue on you. I'm sure I can take the slams a lot better than you, as I make my living being creative, while I'm guessing you live a life of deafening boredom, with only your imaginary fantasies of Keanu Reeves getting you through to the next day.
What it ultimately comes down to is that over the past 10 years, I've felt Reeves was poor in most of the movies he has appeared in. This doesn't mean that I think he is a bad guy, just generally miscast. Now when it comes to you, let me paraphrase ALec Baldwin, "Carmen you are a VILE PIG." I am a very minor public figure, but I am accessible online. I let you get your shots in Carmen, but I guess I tired of being slagged by some frigid woman who probably couldn't even get her Polaroid accepted by Hustler's Beaver Hunt. I suggest you go back to the safe place which is Clubkeanu, where they don't judge you for being a middle-aged woman who lives in house filled with romance novels and unicorn figurines. There are no safe words here.
What it really boils down to in the essence is some get Keanu and some will never get Keanu. I've always admired his courage in the risks he takes with the successes and failures. He even played Hamlet in Winnipeg and a London critic said he was one of the top three Hamlets he had seen.
Starring in Hamlet is a difficult and emotional role. When Daniel Day Lewis performed Hamlet, he suffered a nervous breakdown because he saw his late father's ghost.
so i get you know, you make a living off offending people. says alot about you. low class dope.
Since you are so interested in my standup, let me also offer up that the only celebrities I make fun in my show are people like Paris Hilton, who is a terrible role model for young girls. While I don't get Keanu Reeves, I don't spend anytime ripping him in my shows.
So, I will put here a review that matches my view and to show to you that even some Americans critics "got" the movie the way we did:
"------------"
From Salon.com
" And if "The Lake House" has nothing else, at least it has Keanu Reeves. Bullock is perfectly serviceable here: Her performance has some gravity; she doesn't throw off the aura of desperate cuteness that sometimes dogs her. But Reeves is the soul of the movie -- he's not so much playing a character here as simply being a presence.
Reeves has the kind of casualness that people often confuse with "doing nothing." He's not an aggressive actor; what makes him so charming to watch, and so moving, is the way he keeps his emotions in check -- as if displaying them too baldly would be a way of disrespecting them. Reeves has some lovely moments here, many of them seemingly tossed off: When Kate (in one of the few scenes where the two characters speak to each other directly) explains why she so dearly loves Jane Austen's "Persuasion," he listens carefully, attentively, and then politely challenges Kate's devotion to a work in which a happy ending isn't guaranteed: "Why do you like that?" he asks, in a way that suggests he really wants to know the answer.
And in one of the picture's most beautifully shaped scenes, Alex looks at an old family picture and can't help breaking down. We live in an era when it's supposed to be OK for men to cry, but we feel uncomfortable when they actually do it. We want men to be open about their feelings -- but not too open. Reeves plays this particular moment as if Alex has revealed something of himself involuntarily. We feel as if we've intruded upon something private, a moment we weren't intended to see. Reeves isn't a splashy actor by nature; he thrives in negative space. But his slight reserve makes him more alive rather than less. Even when he's playing a dreamy romantic lead, he's never anything less than flesh and blood.
"------------"
That's it. So, Scott, there are different views about Keanu (as I said in my first post) and your word isn't the only correct and won't be accepted as that never. One just has to realise that everyone's tastes differs and people are entitled to their opinions even if it is a critic which is not in favour of you. So, I disagree with Travers and you, but I have to accept it although getting the support from the critics that meet my opinions and expectations. The more important is to make it clear that opinions can differ and no one can impose an opinion as the ultimate truth.
I can see that you are an intelligent guy and I can accept your opinion about Keanu. I consider myself an intelligent women and I can guarantee to you that I'm not a crazy fan or a teenager with lot's of posters of her idol on the walls. Well on the contrary. But in this case I need to protect my right to show to the people here that there is another side of this history and I thank you for allowing these replies in your blog.
Anyway, maybe we can discuss Keanu again in march and december 2008 when Keanu's next two movies - The Night Watchman and The Day the Earth Stood Still (no... he isn't playing Gort...) will be released… I bet you will be at the movies seeing them… accept that, liking it or not, you just can't resist him! :P
Keanu has fans of different ages from all over the world.
Thanks again to Sandra for your polite, reasonable and well thought out posts. Your English is wonderful.
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.