Thursday
02Jul2009
Seriously, What the Hell Happened to Christian Bale?
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 12:09PM
American Psycho, The Machinist, Rescue Dawn, The Prestige - that's a pretty
impressive list of credentials for a ten-year period. Any working actor today would love to play just one
of those roles. Christian Bale is the man behind all four, and he's great in every one of them, each character completely different from the next.
Reader Comments (29)
I agree. I would throw 3:10 to Yuma in the good performance category, though. I would also throw in Reign of Fire. I know it's not really a performance piece, but it's really cool movie.
I can see what you're saying, Colin, though I don't necessarily agree completely about his performance in The Dark Knight. I felt that he was spot on, once again, but that even Bale was overshadowed by Heath Ledger.
(Never in my life would I have imaged ever saying that, either).
What happened, you ask? Someone leaked the so-called "rant" and it became fashionable to dump on Bale. That was followed with Terminator Salvation, which clearly wasn't his best work but which suffered more from a poor script (the writer's strike had something to do with that) and lousy directing and editing. He's always been a subtle actor, even when losing weight for roles, so maybe you didn't "get" his performance in Public Enemies. Others have called him flawless. Maybe you saw a different film. I also think you're wrong lumping the Dark Knight in there. He wasn't the focus as much as in Batman Begins but he continued the evolution of Batman and Bruce Wayne as the tortured billionaire. I LIKED that he used the "Bat voice" when Batman because, finally, someone realized that if he spoke like well-known Bruce Wayne that people would quickly figure out his identity! I could go on and on. But I like your site and would hate to see you jump in the "let's dump on Bale" corner. Ask yourself if your opinion of him changed after hearing the rant.... and wait until the Fighter comes out.
I'm not dumping on him; you'll notice that you brought the rant into this equation, not me. In fact, going into Public Enemies, I considered him a real strength of the production. But I'm not being glib when I say he was outmuscled by Stephen Lang, who only has a handful of lines. The accent was bad, the passion wasn't there, and it was as monotonous as Terminator.
Speaking of Terminator, there were two good performances there, three if you count Moon Bloodgood extracting blood from a turnip. But Bale was the worst actor on screen most of the time. Maybe he and McG whiffed on what the character should be, but after watching that movie, who gives a damn about John Connor?
All I can say about The Dark Knight is that after watching it now four times (twice theatrically, once in IMAX, and once on DVD), there's only one really good performance in the whole movie. I can't blame Eckhart, because the script was so bungled in the third act that they flash fried Two-Face instead of letting him boil up slowly. Rachel Dawes is worthless in both movies. Lucius is limited. Nolan spends way too much time on ancillary characters like the mobsters and the rogue Wayne employee. And you're left with The Joker.
Actually, I take that back: Michael Caine was really good, too. He's basically reading fortune cookies, but he's still effective.
So I don't hold Bale singularly accountable for that. But even though the character isn't explored as much in the sequel as in Batman Begins, I thought having been there, Bale could have shown more insights into Bruce Wayne. I don't care about the Batvoice; that's Nolan's failure. He should've fixed that in post-production. I mean his completely static reaction to Rachel's death and his totally mechanical expression when he shows Lucius his stupid sonar supercomputer. Watch that scene again: Freeman's trying to act. He's aghast at what Bruce Wayne has created, but you can't read anything on Bale's face. He might as well be waiting for a cab.
He was good enough in 3:10 to Yuma. It's not the best role of the two, but yeah, he was up to Crowe's significant challenge there. If only he could have done that with Melvin Purvis...
I like how you thought that Sam Worhtington was the best thing of Terminator, and you criticize Bale for losing an accent in Public Enemies. That Worthington guy lost his accent quite a few times in Terminator. Enough for me to notice and lose interest in his character. I have not seen Public Enemies yet (going tonight) but his performances have been fine. No one in Terminator stood out, maybe the kid who played Reece actually, and he did a great job in The Dark Knight. Bale is still one of the best actors in his age group.
I find it to be a pretty impressive ostrich routine to describe the guy who played Bruce Wayne in The Dark Knight and John Connor in Terminator Salvation as "a subtle actor." He's turned in "subtle" roles in the past, but certainly not as of late, and that was the point of the post.
I didn't make a lot of hay about Worthington's accent for two reasons: 1) It's a more subtle dialect he's trying to hit 2) The rest of the performance is really good. Bale's accent is one of those big, looping drawls. It sounds hokey when it's done wrong. And, as I've mentioned, there's nothing else about Melvin Purvis to latch onto. We don't know if he has a family, friends, vices, afflictions, nothing. So because the character has no conflict and the accent is a show pony, that's really going to stand out.
Regarding the Bat-voice, I read somewhere that it was actually "enhanced" in post. Wish I could find the link now. Bale's delivery is still pretty laughable for much of the movie, but Nolan's choice to not only go with it, but to intentionally make it even worse, is where the blame should lie.
I think Bale has just had a string of films where his character was weakly written and they happend to all three be big budget summer movies. So what is ultimately the 3 most high profile films he has been in have his weakest performances (due to script more than his performance, imo). He'll be fine. He just needs a couple good roles where the characters have good arcs and all will be forgotten.
Well, two things.
I don't think bale has ever been very versatile. He is a very "internal" actor and he also tends to repeat mannerisms and modes of speech between roles. So I don't agree that he's a different character in every film. On the contrary he's rather recogniseable as "Christian Bale" in most films.
I am impressed with two performances, those in Equilibrium and The Machinist. The rest is not that good, although I can understand that people are impressed with his screen presence.
The second thing is that, I believe that he had a nervous breakdown last summer and that he hasn't fully recovered. Anyone who beats up his mother and sister, the people he grew up with, for asking for money is not feeling well.
There is also the infamous tirade on the set of T4, which was accompanied by a bleak performance not at all justifying the creative slight.
People suffer from depression and breakdowns allt the time and sometimes it happens to famnous people too. Bale should probably take some time off.
is "dark knight" a bad movie? is "public enemies "a bad movie? is he bad in "3:10 for yuma"?
i haven't the same taste! he's good in "dark knight" but Ledger shadowed him like everyone in this movie!
he's very good in PE but i yet knew him in this sort of characters!
and on "terminator",every Conor scene is cut (he never said more 2 sentences)and you see him like 50 min in the movie!
and i can believe the last 12 months was hard for him because it was the first time he took a real break in this career(he didn't work since last summer)
but seriously stop to fix on his tirade (because he's not the first or the last people losing his temper on the set) or his London arrest who was a family argument (never beat his mother)for cops!
You know I have to give my 2 cents on this subject...
Okay YES I have always thought Christian Bale is a subpar actor. Not Oscar worthy whatsoever and probably wont ever will be. He is a definitive action movie star nothing more. He is probably in the film industry known as "hey you have an action movie coming up and want a pretty big fanbase to see it and make money, call Christian Bale to star"
THAT IS HOW I SEE HIM!!!
Now I must comment is that I saw PUBLIC ENEMIES at my theatre at the 12 Midnight showing!!!
-The highlight I should say was the extremely gifted versatile Johnny Depp...not too much else even though I thought Stephen Lang (who I must say is a theatre trained actor) is quite powerful in his very bit role, excellent casting...
-I also thought Stephen Dorff (Homer Van Meter), Giovanni Ribisi (Alvin Karpis), and Stephen Graham (Baby Face Nelson) (scene stealer in my opinion, but his part was written that way) who are the supporting gangsters involved with Dillinger did make their character come alive for me...those were great casting choices as well
-Bale on the otherhand was quite bland, boring, and played one color and not so convincing, which was determined.... But there was no complexity or sympathy or any feeling whatsoever for him or what he was trying to do...yes his script was shit but I still feel he couldve done more, and the accent was quite OFF at some moments and something which is just a technical issue for an actor, Im surprised Mr. Mann did not catch that or film it until Christian got it right?????
Bale said in an interview recently he would not speak with Johnny at all during shooting or inbetween takes, and I was wondering you know thats a great idea and all but it didnt seem to help and I want to ask anyone willing to answer why do you think that is ???????????
American Pyscho and The Machinist are his greatest work... but I really dont see him as anything more than an action movie actor and thats his place and thats the place he chose by accepting those parts, and we shouldnt expect toooo much out of him.....
I's say the problem is too much work in too little time. I think he used to pick and choose (or was just limited to having to take smaller and fewer-far between roles) parts and really get fully into them. He's a great actor at times but when he works in material not great its hard to shine.
I will say that Rescue Dawn was another great performance to add to his list of several strong, definitely more than weak, performances from his great work as a kid in Empire up until his good, not great but good, work on the Dark Knight. I don't think he was so bad in Terminator either but Worthington and Yelchin had the better parts. Hopefully his next project he can show a bit more dedication and time to the character like he always used to...
How many Oscars has Bale one for all those performances? NONE! That's the real travesty, for all his effort and critical praise, he rarely see's it translate into recognition (beyond fans and critics).
So I don't blame him for going for the money. At this point making sure his family is taken care of for life isn't a bad approach to choosing film roles. He'll come back to form eventually when he's tired of being the movie star and decides to return to his craft.
But even then, anyone actually believes he'll finally get recognition for a stellar performance, or be shunned like he was for The Machinest, Rescue Dawn, and (my personal favorite performance) Harsh Times.
Hey Colin,
I appreciate you keeping the dialog going. Bale is a great actor and is in some of my favorite movies of late, but he has picked some duds recently. I blame terminator completly on McG because he is a music video director and can't seem to weave in a good story into a feature film. In the Dark Knight Bale did exactly what was asked of him, I felt. And Why, may i ask, did'nt anybody see Rescue Dawn. It was a great film. I hope people will give the Hurt Locker a chance this year as it has gotten no coverage outside of a few reviews. Thankns again for the site.
bale was not bad in terminator salvation. the problem was the script. (i laughed when someone blamed the writer's strike on the bad script. really? the writer strike? no one could have come on the script later to fix it? yeah, right.) it was a movie about marcus and they tried to shoehorn john conner into it. that was the problem. bale did the best he could with a crap role.
er i mean "blame the bad script on the writer's strike". ahem.
IN dark knight, bale wasn't the star
he was a suporeting role
the was a joker movie
that's who the script was written for he was showcased
discount that movie
I'd like to say ditto to Lengthy Johnson on Bale being Bale in his movies. Time and again I read about him being "immersed" or "inhabihiting his characters", which mystifies me, since I see it the other way round, like, his characters inhabit him. Just as Mr Bale said he liked acting for the chance it gives to sort of live different lives, so I like his acting for that. I see different lives of Mr Bale on screen, and that's great for me. Maybe it's because I'm so intrigued by Mr Bale's own personality and views, instead of caring for fictional personas of his movies.
And ditto about the second thing, you pinpointed by worries. I hate to see his latest pictures since I see something wrong in the look in his eyes. I so much hope this is temporary.
"So I don't hold Bale singularly accountable for that. But even though the character isn't explored as much in the sequel as in Batman Begins, I thought having been there, Bale could have shown more insights into Bruce Wayne. I don't care about the Batvoice; that's Nolan's failure. He should've fixed that in post-production. I mean his completely static reaction to Rachel's death and his totally mechanical expression when he shows Lucius his stupid sonar supercomputer. Watch that scene again: Freeman's trying to act. He's aghast at what Bruce Wayne has created, but you can't read anything on Bale's face. He might as well be waiting for a cab."
I think Bale did what he was given to do. How is he to show insights into Bruce Wayne that aren't in the script to show? A raised eyebrow or by wincing and grimacing? What you call static reaction to Rachel's death could just as well be viewed as disbelief or shock, maybe Bale played it as it was written. If that's the case then it's not his fault that the character lacked for depth. Sure, Bale had been here before having done Batman Begins but he's not the one who gets to decide what Bruce Wayne does or does not bring to screen.
As for the scene with Lucius Fox, I actually thought both characters reactions were off the mark. Their entire relationship up to that point had a wink-wink gee-whiz cool element to it when discussing tech gadgetry. This scene comes along and that wink-wink is still there for Wayne but Fox views it as the weaponization of his work for which he will not stand. Oh but hang on, how is it that Fox doesn't appreciate that the point of what Wayne has done was in order to get to the Joker? This wasn't simply a ooh lookee Fox, now I can spy on the world ain't it great!? It was clearly done to pinpoint Joker period. There could've been a bit more on the part of Wayne/Bat to allay Fox's fears but really did he deserve the distrust from Fox of all people?
"I don't want to say it's laziness, but maybe Bale just isn't looking for the kinds of roles that require that much of him physically and being an actor who processes so much about his characters through that physicality leaves his less demanding performances a little stagnant."
"There's potentially good news on the horizon: Bale said this week that he's dropped some weight for David O. Russell's The Fighter, and that's served him well before. As it stands now, we're almost three years removed from the Christian Bale everybody used to talk about."
Hmmm... it looks as though you feel Bale's best work comes out when he's in roles that are physically demanding. That his performances in such roles are more viscerally evocative that you really can't take your eyes off of him. Roles where he not only embodies the character but practically bleeds the character through his pores. Perhaps that does make for his most memorable work but then every role does not call for such intensity. As the differences between Batman Begins and Dark Knight show, it's not that Bale doesn't know the role as you state he's been there before... it's how the role is written.
I don't necessarily buy that it's always the writing. If that were the case, they could hire anybody for the role. You don't pay Christian Bale a ton of money because he can do with a role exactly what another actor can do with it.
A perfect example is J.K. Simmons. He never gets a leading role but he always does more with a small bit of screen time than the guy who didn't get the part, and that's precisely the reason why. His three minutes or five minutes or whatever it is in Burn After Reading is by far the best part of the movie.
Just because you don't have great dialogue doesn't mean you shut off your ability to develop a character that expresses himself. My problem with Bale in the past three movies is that he is overshadowed by other performers with smaller roles. Is Alfred any better written in The Dark Knight or does Caine just give a better performance? Did Michael Mann save all the good dialogue in Public Enemies for Stephen Lang or did Lang decide to make his character more fleshed out than Melvin Purvis with just a handful of lines?
Colin is absolutely right. You cannot blame the script for bad acting. A role such as batman really has unlimited potential for an actor to fill it with meaning. There are literally dozens of different ways to do any given scene.
Just take the time to listen to the commentary track to any DVD or BluRay. There you will hear the many different options that actors and directors explore when making a movie.
Yesterday I watched the remake of Sleuth with the commentary by Branagh and Caine. Although it is a very tightly scripted film (by Harold Pinter), the commentary makes it abundantly clear that each scene could be acted in a variety of ways to say different things about the characters.
As any top actor Bale would be both allowed and encouraged to create his own characters. Unfortunately he has responded to this with ever more closed and non-descript character depictions.
He's now obviously an actor trying to hide rather than display.
How was Stephen Lang's character more fleshed out than Christian Bales? We know even less about that character than Purvis. Just because he was a hard old man with a steely eyed stair, he is more fleshed out? Couldn't disagree with you more on this one.
well there was the story about bale wanting mcg to change the terminator script to make it more story driven before he would sign on which is admirable. But the weird thing is when i first heard Christian Bale was going to be in Terminator I immideately jumped as thought wow he would make an awesome terminator (though after initial excitement wore off and started thinking more logically i wasnt convinced on that level but emotionally i was all for it) but then i heard him as john conner and instantly i was disappointed with that casting to be honest. Christian Bale is one of my favorite actors, but i think he never should of been john conner, it just didn't fit to me. I would of loved to of seen him as one of the BAD terminators though. overall i think bales strength is his broodiness and roles like that are what suits him the best. there wasn't something ackward about his performance in The Dark Knight, especially in the scenes when he was talking with alfred i don't know why but those really didn't add up. And also i have to say i think the dark knight movie is overrated. IT IS GOOD but then again i prefered the first one just like i prefered the first spiderman and x-men to the second ones which everyone seemed to love.
Man, you really haven't forgiven Bale for losing his temper on the set of "TERMINATOR SALVATION", haven't you?
By the way, I've enjoyed all of his recent performances in the past few years, including those from "TERMINATOR" and "PUBLIC ENEMIES". By the way, as much as I had enjoyed Sam Worthington's performance, I found his American accent very questionable. His Australian accent kept getting in the way on more than one occasion.