Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 1:08pm

Who, do you feel, has had the more sucessful career thus far and has the more impressive canon of work?

[sabrelady]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 1:20pm

Nathan. He has been at it alot longer & has stage credentials that go back to the late 60's. Film work is also more diverse as he was never a "leading man" type. ( argueably Matthew is an unconventional leading man type but still he fits the bill better.) This in no way denegrates Matthew's work and as he conts to mature & grow as an actor he will undoubtedly add more lustre to to his credits.

[timote316]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 3:18pm

Hm, stage: Nathan. film: Matthew.

Nathan Lane has been in more hit shows on stage, i.e. Guys and Dolls and A Funny Thing Happened... However, Matthew has been in more hit movies, i.e. Ferris Bueller, Godzilla (terrible, buy made decent money). So, judging by that alone, you'd think its a wash, but overall I'd say Nathan Lane. If he is in the cast of a show, it becomes a must-see. If Matthew is in the cast (of a show OR movie), its a might-see. Nathan gets top-billing (IMO of course)

[GovernorSlaton]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 3:23pm

I tend to like Broderick more than Lane.

[NoDayButToday2]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 3:25pm

Nathan-- most of the reasons I would have said have already been said, so read tim and sabre's posts

[SamIAm]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 5:43pm

I think both will draw an audience, depending on the venue and the type of show or film but as far as depth, Lane has proven his ability to handle dramatic roles (though he isn't known for them) and Broderick has yet to get his shot at that role that will define his dramatic talent (though in his younger years he did do some little known work, his acknowledged career has not been that steeped in diversity).

The single issue I have with translation of Broadway actors into film and TV is that most directors and production companies don't know what to do with a stage actor on screen and that they often don't get a shot at the roles in which they could really shine because they aren't considered BIG, well known stars, like those who break into TV and/or movies first.

In the old days there was a more fruitful exchange between stage and screen...today...the door seems only to swing one way lately and that is to bring TV or screen stars to Broadway in stunt casting.

But I have left the path...back to the topic. I'd have to pick Lane has having more proven depth as an actor even though it isn't used much by directors...and say that Broderick probably can handle more if given the chance.

[ProducersFan]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 7:10pm

For me personally, Nathan. He just has this amazing stage presence and could basically stand on stage and read from the telephone book and I would be entranced. But Matthew also seems like such a sweetheart and I enjoy him as well. Just not quite near how much I love Nathan.

~Jess

[CurtainUp]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 7:19pm

I second ProducersFan. Although I am a big fan of Broderick, especially in Ferris Bueller and Election. Broderick's adorable and very talented, but Lane is just my absolute theatrical idol (even if he is a different gender...)

[BroadwayMonkey]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 7:32pm

Broderick was adorable in Ferris Bueller, but Natan rocks in The Birdcage.

[lovettespies]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 9:30pm

The Birdcage is the best movie ever! Regardless, Nathan would get my vote just because I think he just excells in everything he does. i really do admire his work despite what people say about his diva like qualities.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 9:56pm

Lane has proven himself a much more versatile actor. He's played different characters, where Matthew has played the same one his entire career.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 10:06pm

I love them both. Two of my favorite actors ever.

But one *could* say that they both have played the same character again and again.

It's not enitirely true at all. But if you say that it is the case for Matthew, then it is the case for Nathan, also.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 10:18pm

I agree with timote. Lane seems to have a more impressive theater career background, while Broderick has a more impressive film background. However, both are great in both film and theater.

[Plum]

Posted: 9/12/04 at 12:32am

Lane. Just because I said so.

*is lazy*

[pab]

Posted: 9/12/04 at 3:36am

"Lane has proven himself a much more versatile actor. He's played different characters, where Matthew has played the same one his entire career."

You've got to be kidding! Nathan is Nathan in everything that he does. He does it well but it's always Nathan Lane that you are watching. No character differences from project to project. Matthew is by far the better actor. I have nothing against Nathan Lane, as a matter I like him quite a bit, but I know exactly what to expect during each performance. I found it much more enjoyable watching Brad Oscar in The Producers because I was watching Max. When I saw it with Nathan, I was watching Nathan.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 9/12/04 at 8:06am

Not so sure. Namo saw Nathan in a play about a famous black listed writer ( the title just WON"T come) & was blown away at how good an actor he is. People get typecast by producers.Matthew as well.Ferris Buller was over 20 yrs ago- he can do more & I think wants to but producers still see him as "young" and when they pay u as much money to play what your audience recognizes you for ( & therefore will pay to see you as) it's very hard to say no!

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 9/12/04 at 9:45am

The play you are thinking about is TRUMBO, sabrelady --- though I have to admit, I thought that while Lane tried hard, the material itself I thought very dramatically inert and there was little he could sink his teeth into to make them come alive on stage. I thnk those letters might be more powerful READ than spoken.

One of my great regrets was not seeing Lane in his earlier McNally period - "Lisbon Traviata" & "Lips Together, Teeth Apart", as these seem to be more varied roles than the type people associate with him now. I first sawe him in "L! V! C!" and he was the only remarkable and memorable element - the only one one stage who came alive as a flesh-and-blood character one cared about -in a rather predictible and maudlin play. When he went on his rampage of rage, it was terrifying and heartbreaking. I think he can really do anything.

If 2004 were 1934, Nathan would be one of the busiest actors shuttling between plays and musicals on broadway, Hollywood films and radio shows.

I'll get to Matthew after I'm back from the flea market.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 9/12/04 at 5:05pm

Pab, my guess is that you did NOT see Lane in Love, Valor, Compassion or in Laughter on the 23rd Floor or in Butley.

He may be best known for his musical comedy as I mentioned in my earlier post, but he is, in fact a very talented dramatic actor and does NOT play the Nathan Lane Musical Comedy Character you reference.

If you get a chance to see him in Butley on Broadway in 2005 (presuming he gets the show here as he would like to do) go see him. You may change your opinion.

[pab]

Posted: 9/12/04 at 6:43pm

Actually, I DID see him in both shows on Broadway. I'm not saying that he is a bad actor. I enjoy his performances. I know exactly what to expect and I'm not disappointed. I'm also not moved because as I said, I know exactly what to expect. There have been some variations but IMO those have been very slight. If you look at "The Producers", "Forum" and "The Frogs", it's pretty much the same thing. I also know that a lot of actors are typecast and that is a problem but now that I think about it, I would also say that "Laughter" and "The Man Who Came To Dinner" are also similar performances to the above mentioned musicals. I would however, say that "Love, Valor, Compassion" was a little different but in making the comparison, I just think that Matthew has a wider range.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 9/12/04 at 6:55pm

I agree that Matthew has range and as I said in my original post I don't think he's been given the opportunity to show that range.

I do still feel however, that works like Butley and other dramatic works show Lane to be a more layered and deeper actor than most give him credit for. But then most people think he is doing the same bit in Frogs that he did in Forum and I don't really feel they are the same performance.

He has a very distinctive face and body and it is hard to get away from knowing that it is LANE...not to mention the eyebrows, but you have to look beyond those things to see the performance and I think some of what he does is subtle enough to be missed by many audience members.