After having seen Anthony Hopkins earn a number of rave reviews (and some very bad ones) for his portrayal of Alfred Hitchcock in (the aptly named) ‘Hitchcock’, I got to thinking about the range of roles he has played over the years. This, in turn, made me think about all those Hollywood actors and actresses who have shown huge versatility when it comes to the characters they have played on the big screen.
Many great actors continue to be typecast in similar roles, despite their fantastic ability. For example, Jack Nicholson will always play characters who are a bit crazy (Jack Torrance in The Shining, The Joker in Batman, Dr. Buddy Rydel in Anger Management and Randle McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest) and Morgan Freeman will always play the trustworthy wise man (God in Bruce/Evan Almighty, Lucius Fox in Nolan’s Batman Trilogy, Detective Lt. William Somerset in Se7en and Pastor Miles Evans in Levity). That’s not to say that these great actors haven’t strayed away from their typecast at all, it’s just to say that they will always come back to it.
But some actors simply rarely play the same kind of role twice and that, to me, is what makes an actor truly stand out from the crowd.
With that in mind, I have compiled a list of 9 of the most versatile actors and actresses from the modern age of cinema, citing just a few of the roles for each individual that express that great versatility.
9. Charlize Theron
Pictured here in ‘Monster’, this role alone was so far removed from what we expect from Charlize Theron that her versatility has to be admired. In order to play serial murderer Aileen Wuornos (a role for which she won the Academy Award for Best Actress), Theron had to gain 30 pounds of weight and shed her normally beautiful image to become a much less glamorous individual.
When you compare this to her action role as Æon Flux in the eponymous movie, her fantasy role as Queen Ravenna in Snow White and the Huntsman, her role as the troubled and mentally deteriorating Mary Ann Lomax in The Devil’s Advocate and her role as determined outcast Josey Aimes in the brilliant North Country, you can only admire the wide range of Theron’s acting ability.
We are currently seeking Film contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Film contributor, click here.
35 Comments
Just as a note, the editor removed Heath Ledger from my list of 10 due to the fact that he changed the title to something that meant including him wouldn’t have made sense (original title was ’10 Of Modern Cinemas Most Versatile Actors’). Given that Ledger is no longer with us, and given that the new title sounds ‘current’, he was removed.
I’ve asked for the title to be subsequently changed to ’9′, so please don’t think I can’t count!
And it’s sorted. Carry on, nothing to see here!
Daniel day Lewis is number 1. This list is a joke
Like I already said, the title I gave it was ’10 of Modern Cinema’s Most Versatile Actors’. It wasn’t ‘THE 10 Most Versatile Actors’, that was changed by the editor.
And if you took the time to actually read the words instead of just looking at the nice pictures, you’d see sentences like ‘So, with this by no means being a definitive list, do you agree with these choices? Who else out there deserves a mention?’
In other words, no need to be an arse.
Based on her movies and upcoming projects, i’m gonna say Charlize Theron is my No.1 most versatile actress.
She shaved her hair and played an “rumor” one armed imperator in Mad Max: Fury Road. She’s gonna play kinda “cowgirl” in A Million Ways to Die in the West; one eyed journalist in Marie Colvin’s Private War; (5 ft tall or so) ugly woman in Dark Places (who, at the age of 7, survives the massacre of her family and testifies against her brother as the murderer. Twenty-five years later, a group obsessed with solving notorious crimes confronts her with questions about the horrific event). and remake of Sympathy for Lady Vengeance nuff said. And u forgot to mention her bitch role in Young Adult.
While i don’t think either Meryl Streep or Helen Mirren transformed and took that risk as Theron did.
I’m inclined to agree. Don’t think the list is in order, or that it includes all of the most versatile actors. And I simply didn’t have the time to list every single role that each actor/actress has played, so I just listed a few.
Nice list, agree w/ you that readers have to realize the titles are completely subjective and have to be incorporated into the overall text.
I don’t know about including Tom Hanks…he’s like Tom Cruise in a way. Although they do a dozen different characters, one usually thinks oh ya it’s tom hanks in a tom hanks role’, say unlike theron, bale or streep who undergo physical transformations.
This does give room for a sequel list which should include in my opinion 2 glaring omissions; Johnny Depp and Gary Oldman (who could be behind me in a check out line and i wouldn’t notice) but otherwise, ignore the haters like eMac there; if they are brave enough, they will make their own list to be criticized.
Thanks. As I say, it wasn’t my title. The editors know best and when we write articles, they often get changed to be more snappy. My original title was ten *OF* the most versatile actors in modern history (but it was edited to 9 due to the removal of Heath Ledger, after the title change meant his inclusion would have been weird). The current title implies I am saying they are *THE MOST* versatile actors, unquestionably, which isn’t the case.
I admit, when I was thinking of who to include, I questioned Hanks. But then I thought he’d played a dying emaciated AIDS victim, a kid in an adult body, a mentally and physically challenged guy, a stranded man who goes a little bit insane, soldiers, cops, a professor, a baseball coach, a toy cowboy, an astronaut, a prison guard, as well as various average Joes and not to mention ‘himself’ in The Simpsons Movie ;P
Depp didn’t spring to mind, but that’s probably because I’m not a fan. Oldman DID (particularly after seeing him as Mason Verger in Hannibal), but I simply haven’t seen enough stuff with him in (same goes for Daniel Day Lewis, incidentally – it’s not as though I’ve seen every movie ever made!).
A sequel list is definitely something I’ll do though! :) And, as someone who watches a LOT of films, I’ll have got some new ideas by then. I’ll watch more Depp and Oldman for certain. Thanks again.
Look up Gary Oldman and DD Lewis on IMDB, a common reaction is “that was him!, I remember that movie, I didn’t know that was him!” A true sign of a great actor.
Depp and Hopkins are the opposite example, they always are themselves acting as Sweeney Todd, Odin, etc. never a true separation and suspense.
Also I would add Leonardo DiCaprio and Anne Hathaway, DiCaprio should get an award for most Oscar snubs lifetime achievement award, and Hathaway is the best good-looking actress out there right now (no offense Streep, you don’t qualify for the second adjective)
I only have two words for you: Jodie Foster
Scoot McNairy
Suggestions for Gary Oldman films to watch: The Dark Knight trilogy, Leon: The Professional, True Romance, Air Force One, Hannibal, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Sid & Nancy, Lawless, The Fifth Element, Murder in the First, Dracula, JFK, State of Grace. And what’s amazing is that none of these roles are even close to being similar. he plays a Jamaican drug dealer in True Romance!
Don’t forget Immortal Beloved. He actually played Ludwig van Beethoven. Talk about range!
Duly noted Sir!
I think like Tom Hanks who plays to his persona, even Forrest Gump is an extension of the Tom Hanks persona, Denzel Washington is an actor who plays essentially to his Denzel Washington-ness. And they are great at doing that. Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart did essentially the same thing. Christian Bale and Robert De Niro transform themselves while Hanks and Washington do not which isn’t a bad thing.
I would have to agree that ANY list of ‘Versatile Actors’, which doesn’t include Daniel Day Lewis, is in serious need of a rethink. Gary Oldman needed a mention too. Especially over Denzel Washington, great actor, huge charisma, but versatile? Hmmm… He’s always just Denzel.
Not every human being on the planet has seen every single movie on the planet though, unfortunately, believe it or not.
If I write a list of 10 fantastic holiday destinations, I’m not going to include places I’ve never been.
I challenge you to write a list of ‘the world’s tastiest foods!’ and then I will tell you some things that I’ve eaten, which you haven’t, that should be on it. OK?
See my point?
It’s not a definitive list. It’s a list of SOME versatile actors. It’s not rocket science dude.
A lot of the most versatile actors right now aren’t the huge stars that we usually think of; they’re the supporting ators; the character actors. If we define “modern” actors as ones who are alive right now, I would include Robert Duvall, Stanley Tucci, and Ned Beatty, among others.
Oh, and it’s too bad that we’re limited to actors who are still living; Paul Newman definitely deserves a place on any list like this.
No Gary Oldman? The horror. And Hopkins is only there because of the Hitchcock movie. Other than that, he’s really not the chameleon that deserves to be in the #1 spot.
This writer is an obvious amateur. Saying something like “Not every human being on the planet has seen every single movie on the planet though, unfortunately, believe it or not” is irresponsible and intellectually lazy. You are (trying to be) a writer/film critic/whatever, at least do your job. If you can’t grasp the idea the DDL and Gary Oldman deserve to be on the top of this list, surely over Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington, then you have no business writing about films, not even on the toilet paper in the public restroom.
zizek; he does take on your beef; stating he sees why DDL and Oldman could be on this list ”9 (OF HOLLYWOOD’S) most versatile actors’ and is willing to write a sequel. Truth is there are a lot of versatile actors, which is why they get into the business, i can think of a few others that are not on this list but again, it’s subjective, based on the writer’s viewing habits.
If you have your own list, then by all means, WC is looking for your contribution- all writers on here are amateurs, so you would totally qualify.
Precisely Jay. Perish the thought that a writer might publish something with the actual aim of learning something new himself, due to writing something that other people can input ideas towards. I mean, who would possibly do anything like that?
It would be ‘intellectually lazy’ if I’d claimed to be making a list of THE most versatile actors. I didn’t, my title was changed. I mentioned *some* versatile actors and asked for other opinions.
And if you have failed to read the comment whereby I FULLY ‘grasped’ the idea that DDL and Oldman may well deserve to be on it, then it’s clearly you who’s lazy.
Get some balls and show your face, instead of hiding behind a faceless non-account – then what you say might make a blind bit of difference to someone kiddo.
But then again, if someone fancies himself some critic of film of culture and sets on listing some (of the most, however you qualify it) versatile actors and not immediately think of DDL or Oldman being one of the very best, that writer needs some serious rethinking about his career or some serious education. It is like someone listing the most influential thinkers and list neither Plato nor Cartes nor Marx. It’s not a matter of taste, it’s a matter of common sense.
Stop hiding behind a faceless screen and silly nickname, or button it. Simple.
Any list that is 10 *OF* anything does not have to include obvious choices.
A list of 10 of the world’s best footballers that includes Lionel Messi is hardly thought-provoking, for instance.
Any list not claiming to be definitive, which has a comments section, by its very nature is there to provoke discussion and indeed give the writer some education.
Note the word ‘discussion’, not the word ‘idiots’.
If your spare time consists of writing insulting comments from behind a computer screen, it’s not just your career that needs a rethink, it’s your life.
Now get some balls or go away.
Oh boy. Your problem seems to go deeper than merely knowledge of films and actors. First, you refuse to admit an elementary mistake. And now, ad hominem. To be honest, this article would better fit under the title “Actors I like” with the quality of your prose and analysis. I doubt it would pass beyond grade school English composition though. I admit I was wrong in my earlier post and I take it back, I was wrong to label you a writer. You do not deserve one letter of that word. I don’t see you lasting here with your nontalent and attitude. Maybe go back to serving food at fast food joints or smoking pot? You were way better at that.
Please continue to spend your free time insulting people to make yourself feel better. I understand you need to, given that this is what you are limited to doing in your spare time, but I will not be bated by someone so low any more. Also, posting as ‘hokEy’ 9 minutes later (which is very easy to do when you aren’t ballsy enough to create an actual account and show yourself), in order to back up your own weak points, does not make it any more valid.
Goodbye dullard.
tom Hanks, meryl streep, anthony hopkins??? these are actors who play themselves in every movie. watch wolfman and hannibal lecter and zorro and you will understand.
fail fail fail fail fail list!
You, sir, have no idea about actors AT ALL.
Waste of time. The author of this article is not film-literate.
I remember WC used to hold to higher standards. This kind of quarter-baked articles which really contributes nothing prove once and for all that WC has reached all time low.
thoroughly entertaining article!
Really enjoyed this. Ignore the idiots. It’s completely a matter if opinion and what you’ve been exposed to. Some people making stupid coments need to take a long hard look at their selves.
I’ve read through all the comments and all of your captions in the list and I totally understand that you list was not meant to be ranked or definitive and that you title was changed, so I don’t think most people’s criticisms are fair. I also don’t understand why the editor took out Heath Ledger just because he’s dead. He’s still part of modern cinema. That said, this list lost me when you listed Denzel. I totally get your point that the list is not meant to be “The Most Versatile Actors” and rather just a list of actors who are versatile. That said, Denzel, while a phenomenal performer, is probably the LEAST versatile actor in Hollywood. Denzel plays Denzel, nothing else. I’ve never seen him in a role that was not a near copy of the persona he has in every other role and in person. You mentioned that if you were writing an article of the tastiest foods you could not be expected to know every food on the planet. But what you’ve done is make a list of tastiest foods and list dry wall as one of the entries. I think it’s fair to criticize you for that. If I’m mistaken let me know, though, of course.