Alan Ladd was no Marlon Brando, Spencer Tracy or Fredric March. Nor was he a Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino or Dustin Hoffman before his time. He was Alan Ladd. He was serviceable. For the most part, he got the job done and didn't ask anyone to give him an Oscar, or even a nomination, for his troubles. And no one would have anyway. It's not that he was bad because he wasn't. It's just that no one ever left an Alan Ladd movie and thought, "Wow! What a performance!" But he created characters based on his own persona that allowed for an exploration of those characters over the course of his career. Allow me to explain.
Whenever I hear someone say, "Oh (insert name of underrated actor here) just plays himself all the time" or "she's just being (insert name again) in all of her movies" I get a little annoyed. I think most people with acting experience reading this would agree that the best actors always infuse a character with their own personality, the better to establish the character as a real human being that the actor can inhabit. And more importantly, playing yourself isn't easy. When I was living at home all those years ago my mother would read through plays with me when I was memorizing lines for a part. She tried to act while doing so. She was awful (sorry Mom). She e-nun-see-ay-ted ev-vuh-ree word in some bizarre Stratford-on-Avon mock British construct. It was unnerving. She was under the false impression so many have, that anyone can act if they're just playing themselves. They can't. Reading lines and making them sound like words that you just happen to be saying doesn't come naturally to a lot of people. Alan Ladd may not be Edwin Booth but he was good at his craft and knew his limitations. Like his frequent co-star Veronica Lake, he never attempted to go outside of his established low-key persona. And as I said in the opening paragraph, that allowed him to develop one character over the course of his career.
Alad Ladd became a star with his portrayal of cold and calculating Philip Raven, the hired assassin of This Gun for Hire in 1942. Eleven years later he had his biggest success with Shane and every time I see either of those movies I think of the other. To me, Shane the character is Philip Raven, older and worn down. I don't mean literally since they obviously take place in different times and Raven dies at the end of his outing but inside the psyche where the character resides. Shane is Raven, older. I can imagine Shane spending his earlier days shooting people for money and as much is implied in the film. Shane understands Jack Wilson (Jack Palance) because Shane was Jack Wilson when he was Philip Raven but now he's fighting the good fight and doing it free of charge. And the only reason I can get that character lineage from Raven to Shane is because Alan Ladd played himself in both.
When an actor creates a wholly new character for each performance, like a Marlon Brando, Paul Muni or Meryl Streep, you can't follow a character over the course of their career. But when they play themselves, you can. Take John Wayne, who excelled at placing his personality at the center of the character he was playing. Doing that makes it easy to imagine that Ethan Edwards of The Searchers is the older version of the Ringo Kid from Stagecoach. The Ringo Kid has none of the bitterness or rage of Ethan but he's young and inexperienced. Because of John Wayne's persona I can easily see him becoming Ethan over the long haul and it allows me, when watching The Searchers, to "remember" what Ethan was like when he was younger.
Another great example, this time over the course of three movies, is Paul Le Mat's characters from American Graffiti, Handle With Care and Melvin and Howard. That's the same guy at three different stages in his life. Can't you see the hot rod drag racer of American Graffiti becoming the trucker later in life before settling down to an empty, low-income existence in the Las Vegas desert? Those three movies are a way of seeing what the Graffiti character of John Milner would have become had he lived on.
Sometimes I imagine the character fell into a downward spiral somewhere along the way. Think 
about the Elizabeth Taylor of A Place in the Sun or Father of the Bride becoming the raging drunk of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf. Or what if Vivien Leigh's Scarlett O'Hara finally snaps under the pressure of constantly having to fight for everything and becomes the hollowed-out shell that is Blanche DuBois in A Streetcar Named Desire? James Bond of Goldfinger is given up by the agency as a scapegoat and the CIA locks him away for decades until he's the silver-haired incarcerated secret agent of The Rock. Joan Crawford's musical star of the stage in Dancing Lady becomes the wheelchair-bound has-been dependent upon her sister in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?
It's fun to imagine these character connections but also surprisingly useful in fleshing out a character beyond what the film provides (in fact, I couldn't even have made it through The Rock if I hadn't actively imagined that was James Bond after 35 years of imprisonment). Shane doesn't overtly provide background details for the title character though it is implied throughout. Fortunately, Alan Ladd made it possible to see what Shane was like before the 1953 movie came along by playing the character in an earlier incarnation in This Gun for Hire. And that was possible because Alan Ladd played himself, which may make him appear limited to some but it also made it possible for him to do what Paul Muni never could: Create a character and spend the rest of his career building a history for him.
62 comments:
You make an excellent point with this post, though I have a harder time making these connections -- maybe I'm just not that imaginative -- when it comes to characters seperated by a century, or when one of the characters gets offed in their respective film.
However, the Stagecoach/Searchers example is a great one, and makes Wayne's career all the more interesting. Obviously, a similar thing could be done with Eastwood.
This is a great post. I was thinking something very similar lately when watching the Myrna Loy/William Powell comedy Libeled Lady. They so fully inhabited the same witty, bantering characters they played in the Thin Man series that this almost came off as a kind of prequel, as though it was the story of how Nick and Nora Charles first met and gradually fell in love. It added another layer to a film that was otherwise a rather slight and uneven comedy. I love these kinds of unexpected continuities between movies.
Another good example, I think, is Alain Delon: when he appears as a quiet, melancholy, silver-haired older man in Godard's Nouvelle vague, it's hard not to think of the young Delon in L'eclisse or Le samourai.
Bill, Eastwood is a great example. So much of his characters are completely centered around his persona that you can really explore his western characters as being one man (which they essentially were in the Leone films). And I never saw Gran Torino but I have read and heard that it is akin to the Harry Callahan character now old and retired.
I love these coincidences: I saw this Gun for Hire for the first time yesterday. Since I'd read the book and knew more or less what would happen, I was free to observe the actors and the lines instead, and I thought Ladd was pretty good, especially because he made Raven (who was a bit of a loon in the book) human, clearly f'ed up but relatable.
As for linking characters: I agree that the two southern belles Scarlett O'Hara and Blanche DuBois indeed inform each other, and that knowing one character makes the other richer.
Oh, Eastwood's character in Gran Torino is an ideal example. The movie itself is fairly mediocre, but the iconography Eastwood built during his career is used to great effect, not just Callahan, but all the gruff tough-guys he's played over the years. Without Eastwood, the movie simply doesn't work - but now, you don't even need an introduction to this guy: you already know him.
Ed, I love Libelled Lady, slight or not. I think it's so enjoyable to watch and I too see it as Nick and Nora meeting. And I'm sure that's what the filmmakers wanted everyone to think anyway when they cast it.
I haven't seen Nouvelle Vague yet but when I do I'm going to be thinking of that connection you mentioned with L'eclisse and Le Samourai.
I think this kind of character continuity is one of the reasons my favorite actors don't do a lot of the "total transformation" roles, like Streep or Brando, where there is/was often a different look, accent, mannerisms, etc with each new performance. I'm more of a Spencer Tracy/Myrna Loy kind of a guy, where I can see the connections from one performance to the next.
Hedwig, I thought Ladd was good casting as Raven. The character has a great deal of heartlessness and casting an actor who plays it low-key worked better than had they cast someone who was bouncing off the walls. In both Shane and This Gun for Hire I find Ladd's low-key delivery makes the characters much more believable. You don't go around killing people for money while being the life of the party at the same time. I imagine you'd be quiet, removed and a little depressed. And Ladd created and played that character quite well.
Yea, I mean Libeled Lady is definitely fun, and I could pretty much watch Powell and Loy read the phone book at one another and still enjoy it.
And I highly recommend Nouvelle vague, one of Godard's great late movies, as well as one of the densest and most referential movies he (or anyone else, for that matter) ever made. Its connections to classic Hollywood -- to Raymond Chandler and To Have and Have Not, for example -- are legion.
Gran Torino is also a great example, even though it's far from a great movie. Its best aspect is the way it relies on the Eastwood persona growing old, becoming this snarling, isolated caricature of himself. The movie surrounding him is a bit of a mess, but Eastwood himself is weirdly entertaining, and even manages to invest this nasty, racist old goat with a certain poignancy.
I loved Gran Torino. I might stop short of "great", but I wouldn't hesitate to say that I thought it was extremely good, and it really moved me. And I don't think it's Eastwood's best movie, but I do think it contains his best performance.
The movie surrounding him is a bit of a mess, but Eastwood himself is weirdly entertaining, and even manages to invest this nasty, racist old goat with a certain poignancy....
I've read that from so many sources. I've got to go ahead and see it but can't get past the feeling that I won't like the movie itself so why watch it. I hate it when that happens. Often times when I finally see the movie I discover I do like it.
And what Bill says about it being his best performance is what will eventually get me to watch it. Since it's a performance based on a career long character it will feel like I'm walking out of a movie before it's over by not seeing it. I've got to see where Harry Callahan ends up.
Oh, it's worth seeing, no doubt about it. I wouldn't say it's a good movie at all, but it fails in utterly fascinating ways.
Another good example I just thought of: Cary Grant. He's one of my favorites, and I love the way he could mold his signature persona to different types of films. The fun-loving acrobatic performer in him carries through from Sylvia Scarlet to Holiday, then shows up again in Monkey Business, where his older, sedate character rediscovers the vibrancy and physicality of his youth.
Ed, I was going to include some examples for Cary Grant myself but for some reason didn't but he's definitely a career performance actor. And what a magnificent performance he gave over the course of his career. I sometimes wish the James Bond character had been created twenty years earlier so he could have played him first.
I also like to imagine him getting a taste for the spy game after being involuntarily recruited in North by Northwest and making a career out of it, which is when we meet up with him again in Charade.
Bill's right: I think "Gran Torino" it might be Eastwood's best performance, but the flick is very problematic.
Eastwood is the perfect example of your thesis, though ... Like Ed did for the Powell/Loy vehicle, I couldn't help thinking that when I was watching "Gran Torino."
And I think you're exactly right: I hate it when people say "they're just playing themselves." And I've never acted.
Rick, thanks for stopping by (and I apologize again to you and everyone else for being so out of the loop lately due to work - which is about to happen again in the next thirty minutes).
I think the whole "playing themselves" complaint ignores that fact that as an actor you still have to make the character believable and if you're a mediocre actor you're going to fail. I never got the feeling from John Wayne or Clint Eastwood or Alan Ladd that I was watching an actor deliver lines (or Paul Le Mat). I watch them all and see only the character in the movie.
I like this take on acting/characters, and I think you make a good point.
In a more recent example, I think this idea applies to someone new like Kristen Stewart. True, most of the "she's doing the same old Kristen Stewart" thing comes from a younger audience, and I don't consider myself to have a keen eye for acting, but I think "the Kristen Stewart thing" she brings to her roles from The Messangers to Adventureland is really great and underrated.
Also, I wonder if that type of slagging-off maybe comes from not liking an actor/actress in general. For example, I always find myself quickly dismissing Julia Roberts b/c I can't stand her. But really, she is always "just Julia Roberts", isn't she? And Julia Roberts is annoying.
Fox, I haven't seen those Kristen Stewart movies so I don't know about them but I agree that the dissing of an actor by saying they are always just playing themselves usually comes from not liking them as well as the actor using the same persona for each character. For instance, a lot of people don't like Sean Penn, including some of us, but would never say it was because he always played the same character but with John Wayne that's somehow acceptable even though Wayne always gave a solid performance. Or Burt Reynolds. Or Clint Eastwood. Or...
Rick, thanks for stopping by ...
I always read your blog, I just don't always comment. My schedule being what it is, it's hard for me to participate in those long on-line chat sessions; and when I do show up, it's often too late to make a meaningful remark. But rest assured, I visit most days.
I'm glad you do Rick, I just feel guilty for not being very present on other people's blogs this last week or so. And now once again I have to submit to my work schedule. Be back in a little bit.
I'm not a fan of Eastwood's, but I think defending John Wayne and Burt Reynolds are worthy. I think both of them get unfairly mocked way too often.
Even when John Wayne is in a lesser film like The Wings of Eagles, he's a hoot to watch (there's a scene where he kisses Maureen O'Hara and he practically swallows her face). I think he often had a lot of fun on screen and came off, to me at least, as kind of a playful guy.
Fox, since you covered Wayne, I'll cover Reynolds. He has a great sense of comic timing as well as formidable dramatic skills. His persona was deeper than most career characters I think and he's been too often overlooked.
Yeah, one only needs to watch any of a million times an athlete or musician makes an appearance as either literally themselves or some obvious variation on themselves to see that the average person, and in these cases usually people with above average presence can't manage the task. It's not something that lacks talent and skill, and, assuming they're well cast, what does it possibly matter?
I'm with Bill on Gran Torino. I can intellectually understand a lot of the complaints surrounding it, but I can't say any of them bothered me in the least. And, yes, it does play as a nice culmination of the Eastwood persona. I'm not sure I personally think it works from the perspective of it being Harry Callahan exactly, there's too many obvious differences, not only in "facts", such as with your Alan Ladd example, but subtle differences in his performance.
I think that's another thing people pass up with this type of actor and their performances, which I am also a big fan of, is the subtleties that make each performance a treat specifically. And most importantly the subtleties that make all of their performances, or their grand lifetime performance worthwhile.
Have you watched how John Wayne listens and stays in tune with the other actors and reacts to what they say and do? Those are the things that breathe life into a performance and make them worth watching time and again.
When I was reading the post, it occurred to me to bring up Burt Reynolds, so I'm glad he came up in comments.
Neil -
I was trying to think of an example of how it's not very easy to play yourself and you provided it. Any person who has achieved fame through athletics or music or some other endeavor who is then cast in a small role almost always comes off stiff. Hell, even though it's a masterpiece, one of things that bothers me at times with A Hard Days Night is the acting of the four leads, especially Paul for some reason. And they are literally playing themselves! And yet, they're just a tad stiff and awkward. Still it's a great movie, don't get me wrong.
And the more John Wayne I see the more I believe he really was a damn fine actor, not given nearly the credit he should, partly because of his characters and partly because of his personal politics, and that's a shame.
Interestingly, it occurred to me directly between writing my comment and reading yours that the one problem with being this kind of actor is the people need to like you, or think they like you, like your persona and think well of you generally. I think we can see this right now with Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise... Mel Gibson is another really good example of this. He plays his persona, but he's really, really excellent at it. Further back, yes, John Wayne's politics, at a certain point, made people dislike him, so his skills were dismissed, despite the fact that they were frankly phenomenal.
(And just a footnote, however obvious, that some athletes and musicians turns out to be fine actors, just as many carpenters and waiters. But just because someone's likeable and has some degree of charisma, doesn't mean they can act.)
I think I'm in basic agreement regarding A Hard Day's Night, except perhaps for Ringo, who I think always had more potential as an actor than he was given the material for. I suspect somewhere in there if someone had gotten him a good script and the right director, he could have found his way down a path to a better career as an actor of this sort.
Neil, I do agree one has to like the person. I don't like Gibson very much personally but as an actor I think he's done some good work. In fact, I still think his Fletcher Christian is the best portrayed of the lot.
As for Ringo it's so funny you should say that because I was thinking the same thing. John was pretty good too but Ringo actually makes me laugh in the movie.
And yes, some singers and athletes do become good actors too, singers especially have had great success in movies and with Oscar.
He has a great sense of comic timing as well as formidable dramatic skills...
Reynolds had his moments, but boy I hope he never makes that Deliverance sequel he's always talking about. I'm sure he won't, but God, what a disaster it would be. On second thought, maybe I DO want him to make it...
I'm with Bill on Gran Torino. I can intellectually understand a lot of the complaints surrounding it, but I can't say any of them bothered me in the least...
Right. I can understand too, up to a point, but the films flaws are very easy to get past, at least for me. Besides that, I think a lot of the "flaws" are an aspect of it being a very old-fashioned movie, which I don't consider a problem at all.
In fact, I still think his Fletcher Christian is the best portrayed of the lot...
Me too. What a great movie. Watching Gibson and Hopkins pull out all the stops during the big showdown scene is really wonderful. I suppose it counts as "overacting" on both their parts, but that doesn't make either any less brilliant.
(And just a footnote, however obvious, that some athletes and musicians turns out to be fine actors, just as many carpenters and waiters. But just because someone's likeable and has some degree of charisma, doesn't mean they can act.)...
I have a feeling that LeBron James will be in movies someday. He's great in commercials, I think. I thought Jim Brown was really good too in movies like 100 Rifles and Fingers.
This is an interesting thread. I think you can play the "career-long character" game only to an extent, since certain actors' personas often kick in well after their careers have begun. For instance, I see more continuity between John Wayne in The Searchers and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance than I do between either and Stagecoach.
As far as Eastwood is concerned, while Dirty Harry provides an obvious template for interpreting Gran Torino, certain details of the new film from the tobacco-spitting to the rat-a-tat of drums suggest that Eastwood himself imagined a thematic continuity with The Outlaw Josey WalesAnd since Cary Grant came up, his famous comment on a "career-long" character as a work of art rather than merely playing oneself bears repeating. He's the guy, after all, who told a fan that he, too, wished he were "Cary Grant."
Bill, I wasn't aware of Reynolds discussing a Deliverance sequel. That's sounds awful on the face of it. That ending is perfect just how it is and nothing should ever follow it.
And yes, I'd say Hopkins (a great ham actor in the Laughton school like Gary Oldman) and Gibson go to the top and over but I don't want sly subtlety in a scene where chaos rules the day. I want balls to the wall screaming and that's what they give us. I have the movie on DVD and should watch it again soon. And Gibson's angry antisemitic and anti-gay rants actually work towards accepting his Christian as a nutcase blowhard. I mean, no matter how bad Bligh looks at times, he comes off more sympathetic to me in that movie than Christian.
Fox, if LeBron James takes up acting in movies I'll make sure everyone knows it was here first by you.
Samuel, I love the quote from Cary Grant about also wishing he were Cary Grant. It was a brilliant persona carried through a career. And since you brought up some differences between Harry and Josey I guess I should clarify that I'm not saying the idea of playing one character your whole career is perfect, but that most, not necessarily all, of your past portrayals inform your current ones. And the actor who "play themselves" are more successful at being able to do that than the Meryl Streeps are.
Another great example of this in addition to actually writing the roles is Woody Allen.
That ending is perfect just how it is and nothing should ever follow it.
Jon Voight agrees with you. I read an interview with him where the interviewer brought up the sequel idea, and you could tell, even in print, that Voight was holding back from calling it the worst idea in the world. He just said something along the lines of what you did, and moved on.
I don't want sly subtlety in a scene where chaos rules the day...
"I'm in Hell, sir!" God, it's so great! Almost nobody lets loose like that anymore, at least not in a good way. And I agree, Bligh is very sympathetic in the film. I don't know about more sympathetic than Christian, but I'd probably call it a draw. But I actually feel good for Bligh at the end, when he's commended for his actions. That film really nailed that story.
And I don't much like Gibson as a person, but I think he struggles with a lot. I get the feeling that he's been so messed up by his dad, and he kind of knows it, and is fighting a possibly losing battle to overcome that. I wouldn't want to hang out with the guy, but I feel for him. He's nuts, and he think it's mostly his dad's faul.
*I think* it's mostly his dad's fault.
But I actually feel good for Bligh at the end, when he's commended for his actions. That film really nailed that story.
...
Yeah, me too. I feel for Bligh and am glad he is recognized at the end for his extraordinary navigational feat as well as keeping the majority of his men alive. Maybe he's not more sympathetic, you're probably right, but he ends up on a more sympathetic note while Christian ends on a much less sympathetic note. Timing is everything.
I wouldn't want to hang out with the guy, but I feel for him. He's nuts, and I think it's mostly his dad's fault....
Well, I hung out with Gibson last night he said the same thing about you!(I don't agree with him btw... I love you Bill).
I can't see Mel Gibson anymore without thinking of the savagely funny South Park episode that tears him to shreds as a batshit insane cinematic masochist. Once you've gotten an image of him leaping around in his underpants and asking to be beaten, it's hard to shake it.
That and sitting through the utter deadening experience of The Passion has been enough to turn me off the guy for good.
I love you too, Fox.
I grow tired of defending The Passion, but I must say that Apocalypto is pretty damn good. Gibson showed a terrific sense for visual storytelling in that film (something which South Park acknowledged in a later episode, in fact).
Agree with Bill on Apocalypto. I'm not a great fan of it, but I think the last 1/3 of that film, where Jaguar Paw uses his forest to fight back, is pretty great.
I never saw Apocalypto or The Passion so I don't know. I'm basing all of my stuff on his public insanity. Of the two I'd rather see Apocalypto if only because unlike The Passion, I have no idea where the story is going because I never read anything about it.
It's the better film anyway, Greg. You should see it. It's not a masterpiece or anything, but it's a more-than-solid adventure film.
Ah, screw it, I just went to Netflix and put them both in the queue. Apocalypto I even bumped up near the top because I always like a good adventure movie. And it's about time I see The Passion. Yeah, just give me five years or so and I'm right there with a controversial movie! I'm nothing if not totally up to the minute with everything going on in the movies right now.
I wish I could take back the time I spent watching The Passion and dedicate it to something, anything, else. Just sayin'.
After that, you couldn't get me to watch Apocalypto if you strapped me into one of those chairs like in A Clockwork Orange and held my eyes open. I'd find some way to look away. Although I find the fact that Gibson actually snuck a single subliminal frame of Where's Waldo into the film hilarious.
After that, you couldn't get me to watch Apocalypto if you strapped me into one of those chairs like in A Clockwork Orange and held my eyes open....
You know what's funny about that whole thing? All Alex had to do was roll his eyes to the left or right. I mean, it's pretty easy to do and is independent of your eyes being wired open. Or look up. Or look down. The whole premise of it kind of falls apart after two or three seconds of thought.
Alex was such an idiot...
Can I change my TOERIFC film to The Passion of the Christ for Ed?
So much has come and gone since I stepped away to do things. I just watched 100 Rifles for the first time last weekend, and I agree, Jim Brown gives a solid performance all around. I think the reason he never became a star is also obvious from that, too. I mean, he's definitely nothing like an embarrassment where I'd even consider avoiding things with him in, but he doesn't have a lot of charisma leading me to want to seek out more with him.
Unlike Fred Williamson, say, who probably is a weaker actor, but one you can't take your eyes off.
Right. I can understand too, up to a point, but the films flaws are very easy to get past, at least for me. Besides that, I think a lot of the "flaws" are an aspect of it being a very old-fashioned movie, which I don't consider a problem at all.I agree 100%. No shortage of love from me for Gran Torino.
As far as Eastwood is concerned, while Dirty Harry provides an obvious template for interpreting Gran Torino, certain details of the new film from the tobacco-spitting to the rat-a-tat of drums suggest that Eastwood himself imagined a thematic continuity with The Outlaw Josey Wales.I almost said that I thought Gran Torino felt more like Josey Wales, so I'll also agree there, too. When I thought it, I lacked the logical explanation provided, so I'll happily simply be seconding that.
I'll also join in the praise of Apocalypto. Not unreservedly, but it's certainly Gibson's best movie by a good distance. He has indeed always been a terrific visual storyteller, and it felt like the first of his movies to accept that and not attempt to be anything else, since he's not good with anything else... at all.
I confess I didn't finish watching The Passion, but I could tell through the half-hour or so that I watched that the actors were speaking languages that they not only didn't speak but had never heard spoken. With Apocalypto, it should have been the same, but wasn't, perhaps helped by how spare the dialogue was.
And, yes, Gibson's Christian is best. He's the only one who makes me believe he's like what the real Christian could have been like. Not necessarily what he was, but he's plausible as a person to me.
Which isn't that I'm contradicting the charges of over-the-topness being leveled about. Merely that his performance feels like a heightened version of a plausible person.
Oh, and while I'm happy to agree that a Deliverance sequel may be a bad idea, I'm not convinced that I'd use the Jon Voight of the last twenty years as a gauge of good and bad ideas. Maybe. I mean, if we take it as "It's so bad even Jon Voight thinks it's a terrible idea..." I can use that.
Richard Lester, director of A Hard Day's Night actually thought George had the most potential as an actor.
Wayne does a good performance in Island in the Sky. I had to keep from ripping out my eyes when I saw Andy Devine in a bathing suit in that film though.
Neil, I think that's how I feel about Gibson's Christian. I can believe him as Christian whereas Brando and Gable are playing Hollywood characters. They both play those characters well and are quite entertaining but in the end their Fletchers feel like Hollywood constructs where Gibson's feels like a real person. Same with Bligh in the third although Charles Laughton is so wonderful as the complete Hollywood Villain they make Bligh in the 1935 version I still admit to enjoying his performance the best but Hopkins Bligh is by far the most real. I'm definitely going to watch it again soon.
Besides, Daniel Day-Lewis is also good in his small role as an uptight little prick. That image of him being made to dance on the deck the morning of the mutiny has always stayed with me because Lewis does it so perfectly. He looks frightened, awkward and pissed all at once.
Peter, George is pretty good in his scene in the office telling the marketer that that model sucks and they all make fun of her. But honestly, I didn't much else to convince me that he'd go very far as an actor, but I did love the guy.
And just thinking of Andy Devine in a bathing suit... shudder.
Very good point about the evolution of the career-long character. I like your analysis.
I agree with ya, Greg. I like actors that bring a bit of themselves to each role. Of course they all do, but some actors don't have much to bring.
And I totally agree with Ed Howard about Delon since he was the first actor that came to mind.
Watching him go from film to film you get a real sense of him aging, growing and developing as an actor and an individual. I would even recommend going back further into his career to get a real sense of who he is. Purple Noon and Rocco and His Brothers are both deeply defining roles for Delon.
My mother adored Alan Ladd and Shane was one of her favorite films, but I never really warmed up to him until I finally saw This Gun for Hire about six years ago. He suddenly had a lot of depth and I can understand why it might enrich the experience of watching Shane. Maybe I should give Shane another look soon? I've seen it twice, but that was many years ago. I'm sure TCM will show it sooner or later.
Thanks Jacqueline, there are so many actors in classic Hollywood to apply it to since so many were typecast according to their strengths. It makes their career into an acting version of the auteur theory in which we see them fighting against the material by continuing a character over the course of several films.
Kimberly, as I wrote this piece and keeping in mind I love those actors I mentioned who change from role to role it occured to me that maybe I like the career performers better, the ones who develop one character over the arc of their career.
I definitely have to see more Delon but I don't doubt you or Ed for a second. If you read my response just before this you'll see I mentioned the auteur theory and I think that's what actors like all of these did. I saw The Blue Dahlia with Alan Ladd just recently and even though he's not a killer in it, though he's suspected of murder, it fit right into the same mold. I could see the same guy that was Raven and Shane.
And I do love Shane. I have it on DVD and love the final showdown between Ladd and Palance. I can watch it over and over.
Shane's playing on TCM Nov. 5th as part of the Guest Programmer series. An actor by the name of Tommy 'Tiny' Lister selected it so I'll try to give it another look then.
In recent years I've found a new appreciation for some classic American westerns that I didn't care for much when I was a kid (I tend to like my westerns really dirty, grungy, mean, gothic, epic and Italian). A great example of this is my response to The Searchers, which is a film I disliked for years. But after seeing it in widescreen one night when I was home alone alone with no distractions I finally fell under its spell and loved it. Now it's become my second favorite John Wayne film (Red River will always be #1).
I reserve the right to change my opinion about a movie anytime, which is why I'm extremely cautious about writing negative reviews. Maybe Shane will win me over on a third viewing?
On a side I also wanted to join in the chant of praise for Apocalypto. It borrowed a hell of lot from one of my favorite films (Cornel Wilde's The Naked Prey) but it's still worth a look and contains some really lush cinematography.
I know I'm supposed to hate Mel Gibson now but I had such a terrible crush on him when I was a teenager in the '80s that it's hard to shake the image of a young and incredibly hot Mad Max from my brain. I'm afraid he'll always own a very tiny speck of my heart thanks to the first 2 Mad Max films even if he is batshit crazy.
I haven't seen The Passion and I don't have much interest in it, but like most folks I'm curious about it.
Kimberly, Shane certainly isn't gritty but the land does have a cold muddy feel to it which I like.
And as I said back in the comments, I love Gibson's Fletcher Christian but yeah, I love those first two Mad Max movies too. In fact, I like a lot of Gibson's eighties movies including Gallipoli and The Year of Living Dangerously.
Apocalypto is now near the top of my queue and I'm looking forward to it. I love it when a movie means nothing to me for two years then suddenly it comes up in conversation online and I can't wait to see it.
I'm pretty sure we've discussed this once before but I'm totally with you about Mel's Fletcher Christian. I think his is by far the best and that's saying a lot since I adore the hell out of Brando's take on that character as well.
p.s. I've asked the TCM robots to email me a note when Shane comes on again.
The TCM Robots save the day.
I've tried to convince a couple of Gibson haters I know to see The Bounty but they won't because they say they can't shake the anti-semitic, anti-gay stuff from their head anymore while watching him. I try telling them they will forget once they start watching the movie but... oh well. No luck so far.
Blast! Late to the party!
I still like to add a couple of quotes about acting styles which I think twill be interesting, since the guy quoted is Charles Laughton talking about gary Cooper's acting style, I think the quite will be illuminating.
Laughton always said that cCooper as to what film acting should be, seeing Coop lighting his cigarette on a scene Charles was in awe: "‘I knew then that he’d got something I should never have, I went across the set and asked him to tell me how he did it. He looked shy and bewildered and said that I ought to know better than he did. I was from the stage and he was just a ham movie actor", later he added "‘We act in opposite ways. His is presentational acting. Mine is representational. I get at a part from the outside. He gets at it from the inside, from his own clear way of looking at life. His is the right way, if you can do it. I could learn to do it, but it would take me a year to do what he can do instinctively, and I haven’t the time…"This was while shooting "The Devil and the Deep" in 1932, of course, a few films later, Charles had learn to have his own way with cigarettes, as can be seen in "Island of Lost souls", but he would remain a Coop fan for life.
Well I mention Laughton enough here that it goes without saying I prefer him to Cooper but I see his point. In fact, I mentioned him three times in this comment thread already. And Gary Cooper was also good at really playing a character and not just instinctively doing himself. In Ball of Fire for instance, he doesn't seem like Cooper at all.
Greg, Laughton is my personal number one ;D, so I also prefer his style... But I found interesting that, during his career he would make appreciative comments on film actors' work, which wasn't too usual back then, when many a stage actor would look down upon film performers (I have to add, in some cases with a good reason, he).
Laughton of course knew his trade, worked hard on every role and was very studious about acting techniques, but noticed that some people, like Cooper, or Margaret O'Brien, had a natural quality which was as effective onscreen as a "technical" achievement.
And, yes, Cooper is fine in "Ball of fire" ;D
John Cusack.
Martin Blank (Grosse Point Blank) is Lloyd Dobbler (Say Anything) ten years later.
Deborah, that's brilliant! I never thought of that but I can completely imagine it being the case. Especially after a career as a kickboxer didn't work out quite as planned. Excellent choice.
Post a Comment