Is Pitt Wrong About His Own Favorite Performances?

I am in the mountains with April this weekend, and this morning, while popping in to the local grocery store to pick up coffee, I ducked over to the magazine aisle to see if they, by chance, had the latest issue of Mother Jones.

Unsurprisingly, they didn’t. However, they did have the latest Entertainment Weekly, which offers the first– at least, the first I’m aware of– interview with Brad Pitt about his entire career.

Being a big Pitt fan, this was a treat for me. I grabbed the magazine and brought it back to April’s folk’s place with me, and, as of two seconds ago, I’ve now finished the article.

It was a great read for someone who has followed Pitt’s career for two decades and who, more than once, has found himself in arguments defending Pitt’s abilities as an actor.

However, I found the article disconcerting for one major reason: Pitt took to task his performances in two particular movies.

And those two movies happen to be my first and third favorite movies of all time.

Pitt said he, in essence, is not proud of his roles in A River Runs Through It (number one) and Legends of the Fall (number three).

This kills me.

Because, honestly, I think they are two of his best roles. And argue with me if you’d like, but I truly believe I’m right.

I also believe I know why Pitt feels these roles were among his worst: I think he sees himself– at least, the twentysomething version of himself– in the characters of Paul Maclean and Tristan Ludlow.

I also think he sees in them the stereotype of himself that he has now spent the better part of a quarter century trying to run from.

This contention is backed up, I think, by the way the ET piece begins: with Pitt explaining how, when he and the piece’s interviewer first met in 1992 to discuss Pitt’s role in Kalifornia, Pitt was cagey and ducked any questions about himself. Pitt says of this 1992 interview, “Where I grew up– we started out in Oklahoma and then moved to Missouri– it was considered hubris to talk about yourself.”

I think this fear of looking arrogant (i.e. full of “hubris”) is the same reason he fears admitting he likes these movies: in them, he plays a character that I suspect is very similar to who he actually was at the time.

In other words, I imagine that, for a person who grew up with a fear of looking arrogant, it must be rather hard to admit you like watching yourself play the intractable, untameable, highly-likable heartthrob.

Thus, it becomes much easier– and much more acceptable–to say you like your roles in 12 Monkeys and Snatch and Fight Club, because you’re playing characters who are, quite clearly, huge stretches for you as an actor.

So, my point is this: while an actor is clearly going to be proudest of the roles that demand him or her to stretch their boundaries and their craft, it doesn’t make a movie or a performance bad simply because the actor or actress is playing a character very similar to themselves. It just makes it less challenging professionally.

Now, I can understand you taking me to task for putting these movies in my top 5. Especially Legends, as it is an admittedly melodramatic film (but hey, I like melodramatic, so say what you will).

But outside of that, am I wrong? Was Pitt not as good in these movies as I contend?