Here is something new and a little different to get the conversation rolling again. I noticed that Entertainment Weekly and one of their columnists have been receiving some flak in the last two weeks, based on the statement in a recent issue that called Marlon Brando the greatest actor of all time. They did not say the greatest actor of his generation, or even, arguably the best actor of all time; but instead they simply called him, “the greatest actor of all time.” Now, presumably, the writer and / or the magazine truly believe this statement to be true. But I would have to question what criteria they used to reach this decision. Was this choice based on his body of work, or was it based on one particular performance? Was it the stage or the screen? Or both? And if Brando is the greatest, then where do you rank Olivier? Or John Gielgud? Or Richard Burton? Or Henry Fonda? And who has been around long enough to judge some of history’s legendary actors, such as Edwin Booth or James O’Neil or even John Wilkes Booth?
At the same time, should we limit the definition of actor, to only men? Or could the greatest actor of all time be a woman? What of Helen Hayes, Bette Davis, Meryl Streep, Sarah Bernhardt, or Katharine Hepburn?
How would you ever compare all these different styles of acting to determine who is or was the best of all time?
The whole thing kind of boggles my mind. Did some organization or another award Brando this title? Anyone have an opinion on the subject?