So, I finally watched Inglourious Basterds. While reading some of the reviews for the film afterwards, I came across this little gem from Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle:

"Waltz [the main nazi character], who has worked in German television, is everything Pitt isn't as an actor, one who can do an exaggerated portrayal and yet keep it authentic every second he's onscreen. His colonel is both a lightweight and a demon..."

Let me start off by saying I completely agree. Within the first 60 seconds of Brad Pitt on screen I thought to myself, "Hmm, he's not very convincing in this..." In the end, it works because it's Brad Pitt.

It's Brad Pitt.

But, what does that even mean? I would say the general consensus upon watching Inglourious Basterds is that Christoph Waltz is an out-and-out better actor than Brad Pitt. Waltz even took home the Best Actor award at Cannes for his performance in this film. Yet, I would say if you were to gauge on an objective scale of "success as an actor" - or as objective as one can be - Brad Pitt is pretty much at the top of that list.

So, how can someone who is so much better of an actor, be so much less successful AS an actor?

"I am better than you!"

My scattered thoughts on the subject (putting on hold the varying ideas of what "success" constitutes):

1) There's more to being an actor than raw acting ability... i.e. there is an intangible look/quality/talent that enables certain actors to rise above the normal pre-requisites of acting ability, and become movie stars, househould names, and/or adopt children from third world countries such as Cambodia and Ethiopia.

2) The difference between a lead actor and a character actor continues to befuddle me. Lead actors, for the most part, seem to be less "talented" as actors, but make up for it with those "intangibles." If that's the case, what is this mysterious quality? If I was playing World of Warcraft and wanted to level my character up in it, what would that look like? +3 in charm? Can I get a bracelet enchanted with +2 in "leading man"-ness?

Cheer up buddy! Maybe one day...

3) The cream does not always rise to the top. Maybe sometimes this world isn't a meritocracy. Maybe the "best" person doesn't always win out. Underachievers rejoice!

Though, I'm really not sure that's the case. I am a firm believer that people get where they are in life because they earned it. Connections, luck, and sexual favors can get you far, but sooner or later, you're going to be tested, and if you don't make the grade, you're out.

For example, Brendan Frasier is not a good actor. In Crash, he put in one of the worst performances in recent memory. Yet, the guy has been one of the most bankable leading men in Hollywood over the past decade. It's hard to argue with that. I think you would be hard pressed to say Brendan Frasier is not a good leading man. He possesses some sort of secret secret skill/knowledge/talent that other people simply don't have. Here's hoping it's an omniscient crystal skull.

4) I think I'm out of thoughts... and it's 7am over here. Hmm, actually, one more...

5) Maybe it's not so easy to qualify one actor as "better" than the other. I recently read an article, in which Phil Ball from ESPN Soccernet scoffs at England striker Wayne Rooney's claim that Spanish midfielder Andres Iniesta is the "best player in the world."

"It's guy love, between two guys."

True, Iniesta is "the best 'floater' in the world" but that does not make him the best player in the world. Iniesta excels at his position, at his "role", but other players are similarly the best at what they do. You could make a case, as Phil Ball does, that Xabi Alonso is "the best deep-lying distributor" in the game. So which one is better, Iniesta or Alonso? It's nearly impossible to answer that simply because they play so differently and are asked to do such completely different tasks throughout the course of a game.

In the same way, Waltz and Pitt were asked to do completely different tasks in this film. The difference here is that Waltz put in a solid 9/10 in his task, while Pitt gave an adequate 5/10 in his. At the same time, I've seen Pitt give a 9/10 in films like Se7en and Fight Club. So really, how does one compare the two actors?

Maybe we'll just leave it at this: one is a "subtle, nuanced character actor," and the other a "swashbuckling, carry-this-film-on-my-back lead." Both are great at what they do, but completely different.

It might be an oversimplification, but until someone gives me a better explanation, it'll have to do.

Annnd, I'm done.

Good night moon.