Leonardo DiCaprio Isn’t That Good

Posted: Lukas Mikelionis Date: 2014-03-05 05:53

Print | Comments

Still from the movie "Wolf of Wall Street"

How dare you even to assume that Hollywood’s Oscar winner in-waiting isn’t good enough. Leo is probably the greatest actor in this generation and starring in movies by respectful filmmakers such as Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, or Christopher Nolan isn’t even his highest peak and potential. Every year experts speculate why he didn’t get an Oscar – Vanity Fair Magazine suggests that DiCaprio is just too cool for the Academy.

Cool, badass characters don’t get the most prestigious award, sensitive and inviting to share the emotions get one. But how dull it’s to suggest that Oscars are awarded only according to film character’s personality, while ignoring the performance of the actor, which would change a great deal into final verdict.

I brought up Vanity Fair because it exemplifies the whole narrative told by Internet community that undoubtedly shapes the opinions of the many observers. Or worse, not that it shapes, instead, it forces some to dishonestly pander for clicks on articles, interviews, and other media just because of overwhelming fan-base of DiCaprio. It’s easy to embody this by looking at the hype 86th Academy Awards generated. First and the foremost popular thing in the event was the decadent “selfie” consisting of the debauching actors. Vanity Fair, in their fashion, hilariously called it “… selfie that changed America.” It was fine show element, Ellen really connected with the youth culture and all other things what that picture represents, not that I really care though. Then, there was another happening such as a high number of foreigners winning Oscars, much higher than Americans, which should be welcomed, unlike the “selfie” picture. Either way, while these two things were popular, they peaked in hype and then quickly evaporated (Selfie will have longer-lasting effect. Give it a week.)

However, the fact that Leonardo DiCaprio didn’t win an Oscar that night reinforced mini-industry of the latter actor, which was assembled long time before the Academy Awards. DiCaprio lobby is acting everywhere, starting from absurd meme cult ending in official and well-respected media outlets. Sadly, I’m knowingly participating in the industry, although not in the most appreciating way, but someone must be the revisionist of Leo. The uncomfortable truth is that DiCaprio is simply not that good enough to win an Oscar. There’re several reasons that would enlighten that.

It’s not possible to dispute that DiCaprio works only with the greatest directors in film industry, yet when he doesn’t – he acts clumsily and terribly. Take for example, Don’s Plum, a low-budget movie filmed one year before James Cameron’s blockbuster Titanic, where DiCaprio is engaged into the role of chit-chatty bi-sex teenager who mainly does nothing. I’d recommend watching this movie for the sake seeing the inability of director to make the movie and its actors, notwithstanding senselessness of the script, to appear at least less embarrassing. Nevertheless, here’s the catch, DiCaprio under supervision of bad director did an appalling performance, while year later in Titanic under Hollywood superstar director gave a completely contrary level of acting. Why is that? I highly doubt that the latter actor suddenly in one year improved his skill substantially. Therefore, it appears that the Oscar winner in-waiting is an image created by his fans, yet that image is in fact a mirror of a crook, who is able to get his act together only when supervised by the greatest talents of the Hollywood.

The dominating perception by what criteria the Academy gives best actor award is another fallacy to justify the actor’s worthiness for it, even though it’s a clear misapprehension. It is implied that great movies win awards for actors, if you have at least one acquaintance who knows a bit about acting, he would tell that actors make films great and not other way around, which means that actors win awards by themselves. Still, subjectively, The Wolf of Wall Street is a terrific movie as long as you haven’t watched Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby and Stone’sWall Street, as both of the movies are some sort of the former. The glamour of Gatsby plus the greediness of Gekko. In other words, the movie isn’t marvellous, especially if you have watched movies other than those regurgitated on television. The fact that DiCaprio also starred in aforementioned Fitzgerald’s book adaptation makes the actors case for Oscar even more dubious. While watching Scorsese’s film, you cannot shake the feeling that the leading role is already seen somewhere, an unpleasant repetition and a complete fiasco for any movie and actor who aspires to win an Oscar. In result, we have a madness, hysteria about DiCaprio that somehow an artist who starred in a rather weak film and proved that he isn’t that much of a versatile actor and cannot make the film great, a quality necessary to win best actor nomination, – somehow must get an Oscar for his performance.

The faith in the Academy was partly restored by the fact that our subject didn’t get an award. The actor, who isn’t capable to sustain his level of performance without supervision by top geniuses, lacks flexibility, and is guided by a film rather than acting itself – is brilliant by very peculiar and subjective standards. 86th Academy Awards didn’t have DiCaprio as a winner, which is a fundamental truth. Any attempts to beautify and Oscarise him is an overreaction, and an awfully fallacious one.

Author’s blog