So there we are watching the Golden Globes on television, and very early in the evening we realise that the Revolutionary Road table has a camera trained on it. Well, that's reasonable, I suppose: the film is nominated for several awards, and of course it puts side-by-side that golden couple of yesteryear - Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio. And here they are, Ms Winslet (with her husband, Sam Mendes) and looking terrific at 33 or so; and Leonardo, looking ... well, let's look him up: looking ... 34? Really?
I'll come back to that awkward age. The Golden Globes are done as a banquet: the guests seem to be having dinner. Well, Kate Winslet must have come very hungry, for she was ready to eat the furniture, let alone the food and the people. She made a meal of things - and she had every right. So there she was, collecting everything in sight, and all the while Leonardo, beside her, was looking somehow older and younger at the same time. Winslet made a big point of thanking him and admitting how much she loved him, and Leonardo gave her a good, brave grin, but I thought he looked sheepish or worse. He could hardly escape the feeling that Winslet was his older sister at least, and maybe his mother. And I don't mean to suggest that she looks as old and weary as she does in parts of The Reader. It's just that he looks like a kid while she's a grown-up.
At the time of Titanic, anyone might have been forgiven for believing that DiCaprio was the outstanding young movie actor in America. He had been a revelation in What's Eating Gilbert Grape (1993); he was very moving in This Boy's Life; he was suitably desperate in The Basketball Diaries; he was a vital spark in Romeo + Juliet. As for Titanic, he had the guts, the energy and the nerve to know what kind of film it was and to spread his sexiness around like jam. DiCaprio was 23 and there were people proclaiming him a genius.
At that age, he had charm and cheek, though it was plain he had a serious side intent on doing important work. Well, the charm has gone, I fear - its only reappearance was in the engaging Catch Me If You Can (a strong indication that comedy may be his way ahead). As for seriousness, or gravity, or being boring, it has come in the form of Martin Scorsese, who seems to have taken on DiCaprio as the new Robert De Niro. He has used him in Gangs of New York (where DiCaprio was demolished by Daniel Day-Lewis), The Aviator (a very silly film) and The Departed (where he was squeezed to the edges of the frame by sharper actors). On top of that, Shutter Island is in post-production and something called The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt has been announced.
In addition, DiCaprio has made The Man in the Iron Mask, Celebrity, The Beach, Don's Plum, Blood Diamond, Body of Lies and Revolutionary Road. I thought he was decent in Blood Diamond, but otherwise, I have a hard time recollecting him.
So what has happened, or not happened? First, play a little game. Which person in these pairs was older: Humphrey Bogart in The Maltese Falcon or Tom Cruise in Valkyrie; William Holden in Sunset Boulevard or DiCaprio in Revolutionary Road? Time's up: Bogart was 42 and Cruise is 47; Holden was 32 and DiCaprio is 34.
Why does the first in each pair seem older in our minds? Bogart and Holden both smoked. They were born before nutrition and wellness had struck American infants. They had seen quite a bit of life. They had very adult material to play with. You may be able to think of a lot of other reasons. But notice the impact: Cruise is foolish in Valkyrie because his life has never known the dismay, the horror, the dread and the responsibility of being a German aristocrat and seeing your country taken over by a deadly madman. And DiCaprio simply lacks the life experience to make something of the pain of failed marriage in Revolutionary Road. I am talking about the drastic let-down in one actor, to be sure, but I am also addressing the imaginative barriers that face a generation of actors.