One major (often over looked as surprising as it might seem, and probably the most important factor) factor is the roles they play and the director's input. Sure, you get a decent looking guy that has smooth lines, and parts involving the toughest situations and he seems relaxed. Also, if a great actor is playing a role in which he is insecure, vulnerable, and always needing help, then it is hard to look cool.
I noticed Steve MQueen getting the most votes. A good selection, he grew up hard, was a hero later in the military saving 5 men's lives. The man definitely had some serious early life experiences that made him the man he was and he was able to use it on screen.
:fyi: By the time of The Getaway, McQueen had become the world's highest paid actor. One of my favorite movies is Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, McQueen was up for put agents couldn't agree between him and Newman on who got top billing. The natural chemistry and comradery of Newman and Redford was (and still is) unequaled.
So I would say that the debate on the coolest actor should be reframed and also explaining several concepts, so that the question might become a series of questions. A man who can play comedies, intimate drama, and also despicable character with no morals, and also seem weak and constantly vulnerable, but somehow he has a charisma that shines through (not outshining the character) it all. Clint when he played in "Unforgiven" and "Gran Torino", played that type I described above briefly in the sentence before. Clint had an advantage of being the director, despite that fact, at his worst (character showing insecurities, what many would consider great weakness); it seems Clint still seemed cool. Even in "Million Dollar Baby", again with Morgan Freeman, he had it. Now if you created the perfect part with a character with super confidence, great sequences, great lines and heroism, my question would be.... how different would Newman, Ford, McQueen, Nicholson, or Redford appear? Kurt Russell, Brad Pitt, Bruce Willis, Daniel Day-Lewis, etc, etc...! I think reframing the question (with a few factors to be considered) could help quite a bit.
t A little off topic but super dramatic scenes, who can top Pacino ("Dog Day Afternoon", "...And Justice for All.", and his Oscar movie "Scent of a Woman"); I'm sure we would have another list. I even read the debate on Pacino vs De Niro, and comments that Pacino's best was in the 70's but De Niro keeps it going. I don't think Pacino personified the coolness that De Niro shows. Take a movie like "Ronin", De Niro keeps you attached through slow periods, and I couldn't see Pacino playing that role. De Niro as Vito Corleone seemed as cool as a character I've seen portrayed. So, was it more the part or the actor? All these names, and many more all bring a slightly different element, and that's what is so great. Often when people talk about movie remakes, I can't fathom remaking "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid". The chemistry of the two made that movie. Now, I've seen remakes that just made me sick. "The In Laws" with Faulk and Arkin was one of my favorite comedies ever. The remake was something much different to say the least, it went up in :flames: ...ouch. I wonder if I would have like the remake if not seeing the original prior. I probably would have watched it once, and said it OK for today's movies (which is a good rating, because besides for a few new comedies, movies have sunk).
To finish up, I have the 10 year anniversary special edition Glengarry GlenRoss (maybe the last great drama acting with the very best actors up to today) in which the special features area, Alec Baldwin has around a 20 minute piece of commenting that is truly great. He got to interview Pacino (while Pacino was shooting Carlito's Way {Sean Penn was phenomenal, maybe the only movie in my opinion Pacino was outshined - I've heard many movie type people say Pacino's lawyer was scum, not realizing it was Sean Penn... that's when you know you're great!}) and Pacino said that today we are more performers than actors. He added, acting is thing we got a certain time to get it done and over, and let's get the lighting, music, all the editing. There isn't room for method acting in today's movies.
One last funny note. After "American Graffiti", Ron Howard got an opportunity he really wanted. That was to speak alone with George Lucas.
:darthgunny
Ron stated how excited he was and wanted some insight and wisdom about acting and being a great actor. Lucas started talking to Ron in general regards about the film, and then stated how exciting directing is especially when the producer doesn't cut or edit your final piece. Lucas then spoke in a very nonchalant way about having to deal with the actors. Ron assumed at first he was talking about difficult issues with certain actors/actress, but then as they continued he said it's great writing a film and getting to direct it, the only problems and downside is actors. Ron was quietly disheveled about Lucas's feelings regarding all actors in general, and stating it's a part of the film industry you just can't get around. I guess the need for improvisation in a Lucas film isn't looked at as an art form, but more of a issue you have to deal with.
~ . . . . . . .
Strykor
:allhail
