Or has his aura of specialness been exposed?

In the past, I've said some pretty awful things about the profession of acting, but more or less the core of my philosophy remains the same: 95% of perceived good acting is a result of casting and editing. And, to borrow from the late Clarence 13X's percentages, the remaining 5% is that truly remarkable type, beyond the credit of the director. That is to say you're either Brando or De Niro (or you have / had the potential to be) or you're not. (For the record, I'm differentiating between "good acting" and "good screen presence," but that's probably a different post). While I'm not ready to lump Norton in with the rest of them, I've no longer been convinced into thinking he's up their with the elite 5 percent or so, like publications and people claim or were claiming not too long ago.

He's been out-acted by Matt Damon, Barry Pepper, and Brad Pitt. Primal Fear was over a decade ago. The Italian Job, The Score, The Red Dragon, and Death to Smoochy are average to below-average movies that weren't elevated in stature by his being there. How hard is it to give a powerful performance when you've got a swastika on your chest and you're across from Edward Furlong? Enough respect due to less-showy, smaller roles in The People Vs. Larry Flynt and Everyone Says I Love You, but we all know Norton didn't build his reputation on Milos Forman pictures and strained Woody Allen productions. Attempts at work reaching beyond his SAG card proved unsuccessful. If we can consider Fight Club and 25th Hour good movies--and even such would merit legitimate debate--that's a grand total of 2 in a decade-long career (one was nahhh, the other was . . .) Best actor of his generation? Phillip Seymour Hoffman is of his generation, as is Guy Pearce, Jude Law, Benicio Del Toro, pick a continent / country, etc. At least for me, Norton's status as Hollywood's sacred cow has expired. You?



(If this post goes well enough, stay tuned for Part II: Johnny Depp.)