Denzel Still Rules The (Box Office) World. But Why No Artistic Risks?
Sunday, September 28, 2014 at 7:00PM 
Is there any movie star more consistent than Denzel? Pro: No matter what he makes, it opens big. Con: Maybe that's because he's just not a risk taker. He may be our least adventurous megastar.
TOP O' THE BOX OFFICE
1 EQUALIZER $35 million NEW
2 MAZE RUNNER $17.5 (cum. $58) Review
3 BOXTROLLS $17.2 million NEW best animation studio right now
On the stage he only appears in time-tested prestige pieces (Raisin in the Sun and August Wilson or Shakespeare plays). Onscreen he only makes two kinds of movies: disposable action thriller flicks & would-be prestige dramas. The Equalizer, adapted from a television series, is obviously one of the former. People won't remember he made it in a couple of years as a newer model surfaces to replace it.
Washington hasn't altered this pattern in twenty years -- take a look for yourself if you don't believe me -- unless you count his curiousity about directing (both of his efforts were pitched towards awards gold but neither The Great Debaters nor Antwone Fisher won Oscar nominations). In the first decade or so of his stardom things were a teensy-bit rangier since the prestige pieces were sometimes full-fledged costume dramas (he doesn't do those anymore really) and the mainstream flicks were sometimes romantic (nix on that, too, nowadays). There were even one or two comedies (gasp)!
It'd be nice if he got the balance better. Many major stars try the '1 for them, 1 for me' approach to maintain both audience favor and critical ardor. But it's easy intead to imagine that Denzel Washington's preferred pattern of '5 for them, 1 for Oscar' might actually be a result of 'all for me'; maybe he just has extremely limited taste in movies? It wouldn't be the first time a bonafide superstar had no interest in cinema as art.
Viola and Denzel in their 2010 Tony winning roles. The following year Viola won box office gold with The Help. But still no film version of FENCES.
Still as he tops the charts yet again with another violent man-fantasy, one wishes he would use his clout for good. Why isn't he using that financial and creative muscle to push important work to the screen? Couldn't he at least do the right thing in a completely self-serving way? Why not try for a third Oscar for Fences? Supposedly he's going to direct and star in it but things never seem to get moving towards actual filming and there've been rumors that he's doing it for roughly, oh, ever. Denzel and Viola Davis, his original co-star, who has more than earned another big screen big opportunity lead role after the box office / awards success of The Help, both won Tonys on stage. What's more it's positively insane that nobody ever adapts August Wilson's plays for the big screen. Viola has starred in three of them on Broadway, winning two Tonys in the process. Why isn't this a primary mission for the actor to get at least a few of them on the big screen - preferrably with Viola starring - since he has more money than God, they're important works in African American history, and he also produces now?!
Denzel could get Fences done quickly if that's what he really cared about getting done. There is no way that the money wouldn't be there immediately if he said "sure I'll do that action movie. But Fences is what I'm doing next. And until I do it no more waving guns around for you!" There is nobody who isn't an idiot in Hollywood who would say no to helping him get it done with gazillions for more gunplay on the line the following fiscal year.
But back to the now ~ What did you see this weekend?
Reader Comments (33)
I love how you end up talking about Viola Davis in several of your pieces in the last days :)
Guess you're not letting TV have her without a fight! And right you are, Nathaniel! Don't let her escape!
That said, I agree with you. If Denzel wanted a "Fences" movie, especially with Viola, it'd have already been made.
Could not agree more about Washington's career choices. That is why I'm not usually interested in seeing anything he does, really. First, as an actor, he is only interested in playing the hero (or tortured hero) or the cold-hearted killer. I saw him in Fences on Broadway and every time the role asked for vulnerability or emotional honesty, he would push, raise his voice and choose anger to express whatever it was. The contrast between Viola's organic, truthful, flexible reactions and his stiffness was easy to see. This weekend I saw The Equalizer because my friend chose that movie and I didn't want to be difficult. Anyways, it was the worst movie I've seen in quite a while. I just learned it was adapted form a TV show, but I could swear it was a Charles Bronson remake. I can watch violence (love Nóe and Haneke and most von Trier), but the violence in this movie really bothered me. Maybe because there was no artistic merit whatsoever that would excuse it. Maybe because there was a sadist side to the character that didn't make any sense to me. I haven't seen a Hollywood movie in a while and this was a great reminder to why that is.
I was going to object and say Flight was a risk, and he was spectacular in it, despite it being a pretty bad movie. But yes, I want a Fences movie! And if it's good, you KNOW they'll both be nominated. Viola has great momentum for a win too (and if Denzel had the right role, I could see them giving him a third).
I had the exact same thought while watching Equalizer--- don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved his performance, he's so badass in the movie, he's gotta be the coolest screen presence since Lee Marvin.
But he doesn't seem interested in pushing himself, he likes the mainstream too much.
He hasn't become a joke like Samuel L. Jackson - Denzel does the same thing Will Smith does;
one big movie a year, one that pays well, but they're not interested in doing any cool indie projects in between.
Yeah, he could easily get finance for his directorial projects, but money has a nasty habit of making people lazy. If he has the choice of making millions of dollars for three months of work VS. spending a year or more directing a little independent movie, I'm sure it's tempting to take the money and sleep.
I really like De Niro The Director, not so much De Niro The Actor anymore. But I could accept him whoring himself out in all those awful movies if he used the money to direct a follow up to the underrated The Good Shepherd.
If De Niro REALLY wanted to get The Good Shepherd 2 off the ground, he could--- he's De Niro!.
But sadly he's doesn't seem to care much about about his career anymore, he has to make money so that his different enterprices--- hotels and restaurants and film festivals---- can stay afloat.
But I digress...
Unfortunately, I opted to watch The Equalizer. There were only three new movies opened last weekend, and all of them were action films: Denzel's The Equalizer, Pierce Brosnan's The November Man and Nicolas Cage's The Outcast. No matter how I look at it, The Equalizer was still the best choice among the three. But I have to say it was really boring despite all the actions, as boring as Liam Neeson's A Walk Among the Tombstone which I watched last week.
Funny is how Mr. Bond is (at least to me) the most adventurous among the four above-mentioned stars. At least he goes for different type of films like The Ghost Writer, Percy Jackson, Mamma Mia and some very bad rom-com (I recently watched him with Emma Thompson in The Love Punch, what a waste of two talents, and then there is this suicide-gang comedy called A Long Way Down). Liam Neeson mostly goes for "someone gets kidnapped, here I come", Nicolas Cage mostly goes for cheap-looking action thrillers, and Denzel... well you covered that well in your whole article already.
we all know if "fences" finally happens meryl will be getting the female lead.
Wouldn't you say that Tom Hanks is an even more consistent movie star? He even does great work from time to time. Anyway, it's unfortunate how too many movies stars get incredibly boring once they triumph.
Whiplash: A-
The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Them: C+
Washington always gives his audience what their money's worth.
Yeah, Denzel is incredibly boring.
Anyway, I saw The Skeleton Twins. It's considerably darker than the previews suggest, but still very funny, and the three main performances are all excellent. I thought it was quite affecting. Why aren't there more movies about adult sibling relationships, or even more well-drawn adult sibling relationships in movies? Our siblings may know us better than practically anyone else.
Marcelo,
No, it won't. I saw him talking about actresses in a pre-Oscar interview - he was talking about role models that his daughter should follow if she wants to become a good actress - and he said first and foremost Viola Davis.
He said hers was the career someone new to the business should emulate. He was very appreciative of her. So I'm guessing he *KNOWS* she's awesome and she'd nail the part.
I planned on seeing [i]Two Days, One Night[/i] but have been felled with a nasty cold and instead watched Hitchcock's [i]Foreign Correspondent[/i].
I'm (mostly) joking, jorge, because meryl is always getting those meaty parts in stage-to-screen adaptations these days. but I'm thinking this one, following the lives of african americans, is not suited to her, right?
Yeah, I know. But what I meant was that Denzel has Viola in high regard.
My point was about Viola losing the part, not Meryl getting it ;) but yes Meryl would not be suited for this. Although since I've seen Robert Downey Jr in blackface in 2008 and Joel Edgerton is playing an Egyptian this very year, I wouldn't put it past Hollywood.
Did you bug me today, Nathaniel, because my date and I had this exact conversation about Denzel's boring, safe, predictable film choices? Neither one of us could recall the last time he made a good movie -- not simply one in which he gives a stellar performance, but one actually worth the use of celluloid. For the better part of nearly two decades he's seemed more preoccupied with collecting paychecks, in which case my question is why he doesn't stop acting altogether considering he has nothing to prove and can't be hurting for money. It would be one thing if he were solely known as a box-office draw, but having been viewed as one of the best actors of his generation for years, one would think that he'd want to keep challenging himself.
You guys, always complaining! You all should be happy that he has box office pull - one of our only black stars out there and he's good. And he was freakin great so recently in Flight. It's not his job to give Viola Davis a job even if the actressexuals of the world would all appreciate it :).
He works a ton so has a lot of duds in his filmography but his hit rate is probably still better than someone like Nicole Kidman (who has been in a lot of awful films) or most constantly working stars. Not every film is going to be great, especially when you are cranking 1 to 2 out every year.
He has some pretty good films in there too (no masterpieces like Kidman though). Unstoppable and especially Deja Vu were both great super fun popcorn flicks. Training Day, Man on Fire & Remember the Titans are his classic Denzel films that really cemented his star. His prestige flicks are usually somewhat lackluster but usually Denzel is pretty darn good in them (Flight, American Gangster, Inside Man, The Machurian Candidate).
I get the impression that Denzel may be going through a really long midlife crisis. He has built up such a huge reputation as a heartthrob (especially in the black community where "Denzel" is practically an adjective now), that it's probably difficult for him to turn away from these action flicks that portray him as somewhat youthful. Maybe he's scared of that transition to grandfather roles.
This is all speculation of course. It's highly possible that he simply loves making tons of money.
I love Denzel in his badass action hero mode, but I do wish it wasn't all he did, and that the more recent iterations were a bit better.
I saw three movies at NYFF today - La Sapienza (excellent!)), Maps to the Stars (not excellent!) and '71 (pretty damn good!). I also saw Filth last night on Netflix. What an odd movie. Watchable, but holy shit what a mess.
I just watched Sweeney Todd with Bryn Terfel, Emma Thompson, Audra McDonald and the New York Philharmonic! Impressively elaborate concert staging, and one of the better-sounding renditions of the score I've heard, vocally and orchestrally. Emma did expert work, although she decided to go the scene-stealing route in her performance. The audience ate it up, of course, but I would hope she'd modulate that in a full production.
(Staying out of the Denzel discussion.)
I second Anonny's endorsement of "Flight." That film struck me as so much more than a "would-be prestige drama." It had a very complicated/flawed hero, it drew its suspense from both high stakes action (that plane landing!) and ethical dilemmas (the truth of his condition), and scene for scene it was a great script. I know some people objected to the AA redemption ending, but it was completely fitting with the subject matter.
I heard Denzel talking on Fresh Air about how he thinks a lot about the fact that for better or worse he is considered a role model as an African American box office star, and that his choices are heavily guided by his own sense of how to negotiate that unique position. We can't really discuss his career without taking into account what he himself says is one of his guideposts.
I think it's unfair that you blame Denzel for not getting Fences on the big screen. You never know what's going on behind the scenes...plus, how do we even know Viola Davis will get the part?
Anyways, if/when it does get made, Viola has the role, and is nominated for an Oscar, she will be the most nommed black actress with 3 nominations.
Yep, Sweeney Todd. I loved it. And I loved that Emma Thompson chewed up the stage. And I loved the way the live performance was filmed. Also saw a tweet that said something like "why can't other musical theater performers look like they're having as much fun as Emma?" And another one that captured my thoughts, "I guess this is how normal people feel when they watch the Super Bowl."
Viola doesn't need Denzel's help, or a film adaptation of Fences. She is already beloved. And with the help of Shonda Rhimes, her performance as Annaliese Keating blew up the internet on Thursday night.
I find Denzel Washington's choices incredibly narrow and boring. The last film of his that I really enjoyed was "The Inside Man", he was good in "Flight" but the film wasn't. I agree that he could be making more interesting choices.
That's why I admire George Clooney, Matt Damon. Brad Pitt, and Jeff Bridges so much. These are just a few examples of major male stars that take a few chances once in awhile. To me surprising the audience is much more appealing than delivering the exact same type of performance in film after film. I have no intention of seeing "The Equalizer" because it's the same old, same old. The fact that these films appeal to so many is a bit depressing.
Hollywood is a patriarchal white supremacy. Denzel keeping his business and creative decisions narrow is what has allowed him to still be viable after four decades in an industry that was not desperately seeking him to begin with. You cannot name white guys and say how come Denzel does not have what they have or do what they do. The circumstances are entirely different. For Denzel to have too many commercial or critical fuck ups places him in a losing position. He must maintain a comfortable middle. Flight earned him a sixth nomination in a very competitive year.
For someone who loves actresses of color you should know better. Television and theater are much kinder mediums for non-white female talent. And older actresses as well. The Emmy's and the Tony's have a much better track record than the Academy with regard to nominations and wins. Also, there are more opportunities for non-traditional (non-white, not young) performers in these "lesser" forms. Viola Davis will gain far more acclaim and recognition for her TV show than film (see Sarah Jessica Parker).
^^^This.
(I said I was staying out of this discussion.)
He is a great actor, deserved his two Oscars (yeah), has incredible charisma and sometimes he gives us spectacular performances, like the one in Flight, that was THAT close to DDL in greatness.
He is like a male Meryl Streep trapped forever in The River Wild?
I think ya'll being too harsh on Denzel. I'm sure if Scorsese or Spielberg or PTA or even Tarantino calls him for a major role, he would certainly accept it. However, it has to be the right role though. Not just any type of supporting role.
I would like to raise a different question. As a fan of the TV show from which this is taken, I have to wonder what is the rationale for naming this Denzel outing The Equalizer. I haven't seen the film, only read reviews. And it doesn't appear that the series and this film have all that much connecting them. The Edward Woodward version was an engrossing character study played out against a layered atmosphere of secrecy and menace. Hardly sounds like this movie, which is being touted as a straight-on, formulaic revenge flick, with the hero being pretty much a blank slate/killing machine. Maybe Denzel is trying to bring something of his own to this, but I still don't get this craze to sully the title of beloved TV shows. I'm still sick over Dark Shadows.
I'm still sick over Dark Shadows.
Me too, but that really was an adaptation of the series.
ANONNY - "it's not his job to [give Viola work]" Of course it's not his job. No good deed, no giving back to the industry that has made you one of the most successful people alive is any star's job. But it would be nice is what I'm saying!
(I'm actually surprised there aren't more stars who really champion other stars who have been great co-stars to them.)
I was an early supporter of his career -- I remembering seeing him in A SOLDIERS STORY (1984)! I loved him for a really long time but I lost interest about 10 years ago when I saw what was happening with his career. Interchangeable movies, and only very very very rarely does he challenge himself (see Flight and, yes, he was great in it)
SEESAW - we've seen many examples of top stars, both black and white, who turn down cool roles because they're worried about their image or don't "get" the project. Given Denzel's choice in material -- even when he switches mediums (like doing plays) I would bet almost anything that his artistic taste is just not adventurous.
EVERYONE -- if you think he has no options other than to play it like he plays it, I feel like you haven't been paying attention to his career or to the careers of the other successful black men in Hollywood. They have WAY more options than the black actresses. And the most successful of them get a *lot* of work and leading roles fairly frequently (Morgan Freeman, Samuel L Jackson, Jamie Fox, James Earl Jones, Eddie Murphy, Forrest Whitaker, Idris Elba, etcetera).
Even the most decorated of black actresses like Viola or Alfre or Angela (with the weird exception of Halle Berry... who i so wish was a better actress given her place in the industry) rarely get more than one or two opportunities to headline a movie.
It is just not remotely comparable.
Denzel is incredibly gifted and incredibly successful and there is no way Hollywood wouldn't let him do whatever he felt like doing. Ambitious artistically driven stars, if they don't like what's being offered or they just have idiosyncratic tastes, develop their own stuff or seek out auteurs. George Clooney and Brad Pitt, for example -- who are very comparable in terms of levels of fame though they aren't as consistently top-grossing as Denzel -- are total badasses when it comes to getting interesting projects made.
Very successful A listers in any industry can call their own shots. Some challenge themselves. Others do not.. It's not Hollywood preventing Denzel from stretching or caring about the artform, it's Denzel.
Nathaniel, I don find it interesting that all those black actors you mention also exist in a fairly narrow terrain, choice wise.
There is no way Hollywood wouldn't let him do whatever he felt like doing.
I'm sorry, but this sounds very naive. There is no way that Hollywood would let Denzel do whatever he felt like doing. And by Hollywood I not only mean the "patriarchal white supremacy" 3rtful names, but also the black Hollywood, for whom Denzel is a "role model" (as mentioned by San FranCinema).
I did not want to get into this, because as a black actor myself and as someone who has a (minor) past connection with Denzel, I don't want to dissect his career choices in this forum, no matter what I personally think of them. However, if it is one's goal to have a certain type of longevity as a black star (I do not say actor), then one manages one's career the way Cruise and Hanks have, not the way Clooney and Pitt do. That's one way to stay on top. Another is the Samuel L. Jackson way, but I don't find his "auteur" work the most challenging acting work. An "ambitious artistically driven" actor like Danny Glover is not being offered the same roles as Tommy Lee Jones—hell, Tommy Lee Jones isn't being offered them. Maybe if Carl Franklin and Charles Burnett were still directing features...
If you look at Denzel's peers (i.e., actors born the same year as he), would you prefer he had the career of Dennis Quaid, Ray Liotta, Scott Bakula, Jackie Chan, Chris Noth or...John Travolta? Interestingly, Dennis Haysbert, also born in 1954, is doing pretty well, both artistically (thanks to TV) and financially (thanks to Allstate), but he's not a movie star.
Will Smith stumbled, but Denzel abides, as the heir to Sidney Poitier.
I don't know, does Denzel really have that much control over what he does/what parts are offered to him.
Other than the tiniest of films, most indie films that big stars are in are pretty white. Most of the strongest directors also have very few roles for blacks that aren't beyond a few lines or made for Morgan freeman to utter some key words of wisdom.
While he's big, I'm willing to bet and believe that race is still a limiting factor for him, in much the scale way (or more) that age limits the roles of actresses. Even she you're a big deal, he's still a black actor, and he has to deal with that. It doesn't mean that he's in awful films, poor, or less popular. It does mean that he doesn't have the priviliged to get any role in any type of film.