Staff Reports
Ah, the art of ranking movie performances—a favorite American pastime almost as treasured as baseball. Recently, the esteemed website The Ringer took on the herculean challenge of listing the top 101 movie performances of the 21st century. Now, lists like these tend to spark about as much controversy as political debates, but let’s dive into the top ten they served up and see if there’s anything worth nodding at—or rolling our eyes over.
The Ringer’s list starts appropriately enough with Naomi Watts in “Mulholland Drive” at the top spot. Clearly, they kicked things off with arthouse flair, though one might argue over more memorable performances that have graced our screens. By the time they swing to Daniel Day-Lewis in “There Will Be Blood” at number two and take a pit stop with Philip Seymour Hoffman in “The Master” at number three, one gets the feeling that perhaps they were more concerned with impressing the cinephile crowd than the average moviegoer.
Then, it’s onto Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg in “The Social Network”, sitting at number eight. Now, these performances have deservedly carved their places in cinematic history. But really, should performances in films primarily about technology warrant such high esteem? It’s a bit akin to lauding the artistic endeavors of a tech start-up within a bustling, more traditional film genre backdrop.
Finding flaws in such frivolous lists can be half the fun, and it’s difficult not to think of some exclusions here. While the list highlights palpable talents—like Watts and Day-Lewis—others, like Joaquin Phoenix for “The Master,” are deserving of their place too. However, it also hides undeniable talents like Ryan Gosling in “Blue Valentine” and perhaps might have missed out on considering performances like J.K. Simmons in “Whiplash,” which deserves a standing ovation for transforming a jazz drama into heart-pounding thriller material, or Russell Crowe in “Gladiator.”
In the end, this is what makes such a list so delectable to dissect: the sheer subjectivity involved. At times, it reflects more of a cultural leaning than a true measure of artistic achievement. It hides undeniable talents—while shining much-deserved light on others. And for that, we should applaud The Ringer for reinvigorating the age-old art of arguing passionately about cinema over dinner tables across the nation. After all, in the grand tradition of discussion, it keeps the love of movies alive, trivial or not.
