I started going to the movies in the seventies and Steve McQueen was one of the first stars I got to know in current releases. When I saw his last film in the theatre, The Hunter, on opening weekend no less, so excited was I to see it, I felt I knew him well. I didn't. Even though I loved movies like The Blob, The Great Escape, Bullitt, Papillon and, yes, The Hunter, mediocre as it may be, I didn't fully understand Steve McQueen as an actor. I liked him and his movies but never felt he was doing the job I thought others were doing when it came to big screen acting. I certainly didn't think he was bad, I just never gave him much thought as an actor overall. But then, very recently in fact, I had a revelation.
A few months ago I watched The Towering Inferno for the first time since childhood. I was going to use it for a "Land Before CGI" post but decided against it upon realizing it was almost all stunt work (admirable enough, don't get me wrong) and very little in the way of miniature or optical effects. And it didn't matter because before my eyes I was seeing something that fully and finally explained Steve McQueen for me. I even brought it up to my wife in excitement after watching it, like I'd discovered some secret know one else knew. It starts with this: Steve McQueen as Fire Chief Michael O'Hallorhan has not one line of dialogue that hints at character depth or development of any kind. Not one. Every single line is technical: "I need to know the businesses on each floor above the fire." "Why?" he's asked. "If they manufacture polyester, that releases cyanide gas at high temperatures. If they ..." and so on. All of his lines are like that. And he's brilliant! And I am being very serious here. Truly, no flippancy. Steve McQueen carries that entire film in a walk. He is utterly, completely and absolutely convincing as the fire chief. I did not doubt for a second he was one and if I were in a building on fire and he showed up and started talking like he does in this movie I would do whatever he told me to do. I would trust him implicitly. But more than that, he is compelling and the audience wants to return to him every time he exits the screen.
And that's why Steve McQueen confused me at times as an actor: He was a star and he should've been the guy playing the technical expert in every action film ever made. The roles that McQueen excelled at, like the authority figure here in The Towering Inferno, are few and far between in the world of cinema. Fire chiefs just don't get many starring roles.
In order to explain further I need to make a claim that will seem strange to some but I am betting my fellow actors out there will understand. There is a real talent to being non-expressive in a role. Most people confuse that with being wooden. It's not the same thing. Being wooden is delivering your lines badly and flatly. Being non-expressive is delivering your lines convincingly but without flourish. And casting in those types of roles usually misses the mark. Burt Lancaster was an actor who "acted" every word of dialogue and I imagine his role as the fire chief would have been as much of a disaster as Steve McQueen playing Elmer Gantry. Each actor had his strength and in the fire chief role, Lancaster's strength would have worked against him. That's because most actors, not just Lancaster, would have instinctively given that fire chief "character" when in real life, in a real fire, all the chief does is give orders. I think it's a high compliment, and a sincere one, to say I can't imagine another actor being smart enough to play the fire chief the way McQueen did. Steve McQueen knew straight-forward, quiet and convincing authority like most people know how to breathe. He used this same style in most of his roles whether it really fit or not. And being non-expressive, but not wooden, means he never came off looking ridiculous in a role because he was trying too hard to nail a moment with the perfect delivery. But it also means he was very misunderstood as an actor and still is.
When I finished watching The Towering Inferno I reassessed Steve McQueen as an actor. We associate great acting with great range but really, expertise in one specific area is quite an achievement. And few actors in movie history could do convincing non-expressive like McQueen. Turns out he was a damn good actor after all, I'd just been looking in the wrong direction the whole time.
************
This post written for the Steve McQueen Blog-a-thon hosted by Jason Bellamy of The Cooler.
73 comments:
Is that why he was so bad in The Great Escape, trying to play a flamboyant role when he wasn't capable of it?
He played everything the same way and when it fit, like the Fire Chief, it worked like gangbusters! Bullitt's another non-expressive role and it was perfect for him. I love The Great Escape but I didn't think his character was particularly flamboyant in that. The real charmer in that is James Garner, and he was, as always, just right.
Also, McQueen was well aware of what he could or couldn't do. He couldn't do emotional or crying and told directors that. He was comfortable being a cop or a fire chief or a p.o.w. who escapes on a motorcycle. I like actors who don't walk around thinking they're the best thing going since the Barrymore family exited the stage. McQueen had no illusions about where his talents lay. I like that.
Yes, he was. He was cocky with a capital C. He does that a lot, which I think is why I've never been attracted to his movies. I like Junior Bonner the best, but I have seen very few of his films. He wouldn't be able to open a film if everyone was like me. Despite his charisma, I think he's more appealing to men than women, at least as a screen presence.
Don't you think your admission that he couldn't do much as an actor kind of belies your admiration of his skill playing the fire chief? He did what he knew how to do, and someone was smart enough to cast him in the part. Is that real genius acting? I don't know.
So anyway, you don't like him. Got it. I'm just trying to write up a guy who did some movies I like and talk about how good he was playing it straight. Take from that what you will.
I found a weakness in your argument and now you're picking up your toys and going. Thanks a lot, Greg.
How do feel about Sand Pebbles? I I can never decide if it is a truly a great movie or just one that I happen to like a lot.
A weakness in my argument?! It's a freaking tribute post to Steve McQueen, not a discertation on Free Market economies. I said he plays it non-expressive. How does someone recognizing that and casting him in The Towering Inferno weaken the argument? The argument is simply that: he was great in those kinds of roles. Geez.
Andrew, I haven't seen that in a long time but I'd like to see it again. I don't know how much of a difference there is anyway sometimes between a great movie or one you just like a lot anyway, you know? I think that one was his one nomination though if I'm not mistaken.
Probably my favorites of his movies are Papillon and The Great Escape. And I do think The Great Escape is kind of great.
GREAT post! I agree completely.
Steve was a very understated actor, which causes many people to think he wasn't a good actor at all. (Or that he was just "playing himself".)
I think he was a very good actor.
Watching him in Love With the Proper Stranger is amazing. He completely fills an actually rather difficult role (equals parts crazy drama and comedy)!
Which is another thing...
Steve always gets pretty much mocked mercilessly for his comedic turns (The Honeymoon Machine...), but he was really very good in them.
One question: Have you ever seen Wanted: Dead or Alive? If not I would totally recommend it. Steve playing Josh Randall, a loner (but oh-so cool) bounty hunter is my favorite of all McQueen work!
Whoa, sorry about the long comment! Haha!
P.S. To Marilyn, I understand what you're trying to say about appealing more to men than women. But I'm a fifteen year-old girl, and I love his work and acting style. Whether he is in crazy action movies or totally over the top 60's comedies (I actually LOVE The Honeymoon Machine...ahahaha!). So, I think it more just boils down to personal taste.
Greg: This is terrific. Thanks so much for contributing to the blog-a-thon. You've perfectly articulated the essence of McQueen's power as an actor. And, yes, it was a limited power and not for everyone, as Marilyn has implied. Then again, Cary Grant was limited, too. We just don't think of him that way because he was a talker.
Just for fun, I reviewed almost every McQueen film prior to the blog-a-thon. Watching all those films, McQueen's weaknesses were obvious. But at the same time, his genius becomes more apparent. As you say, Greg, McQueen's approach was just different than the norm. We're so used to associating acting with the delivery of dialogue, probably because of its close association to the stage, where words are essential. ("To be, or not to be." And all that.) But McQueen, by virtue of his weaknesses, figured out that the camera allows action to replace the spoken word. (And why more actors don't seem to know this, considering that film started with the silent era, I have no idea.)
I totally understand why people aren't blown away by McQueen's acting, but I think his style is just as legitimate, and just as skillful, in its own way, as anyone else's. If it's a range contest, sure, McQueen finishes near the back of the pack. But, then again, doesn't Cary Grant finish with him?
P.S. I didn't mean for this to turn into a bash-Cary-Grant comment. Just using him as an example. You could swap him out with a lot of other actors who are considered better actors than McQueen almost solely because they were just better at dialogue and vocal fluctuation (the Burt Lancaster move).
Steve McQueen always struck me as someone who should have born before Brando changed the world. Actors who always brought a certain part of their persona to every role and were still great actors. Maybe the last great 'movie star' who could also act.
The phrase "a typical Steve McQueen role" means something pretty specific but not derogatory.
There is one current actor who I think comes close (ok maybe two since Steve) but I am a little leery about bandying his(their) name in front of a bunch of cinema experts.
I believe that no matter what some might say about the film, nor how great or bad it actually is, it raises a complex issue, on the people that need to be saved first from a burning building, about the assesment of which lives are more important than others, it's about making choices.
You don't have to see me on The Towering Inferno or McQueen in it. (I bet Paul Newman would rather have played McQueen's functional role in that than the lover-architect he did play; Newman also said, according to Robert Quarry with whom he appeared in WUSA, that he would have loved to have played Count Yorga, Vampire.
I think it's terrible in screenwriting or even writing for television that we're hung between two poles when professional characters are used: that the writer knows nothing, and as such the characters all wisecrack and banter or else we get every bit of research the writer did thrown in our faces, split up among six or seven characters as if they're singing choruses of "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" (watch any episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit to see this obnoxious trend in effect). Just as some people hate hearing Hostel or the Saw movies derided as "torture porn," I can't stand it when The Towering Inferno is dismissed as a "disaster flick." There's great stuff in this. And crap. It's a nice package. Movies don't really give you that anymore.
That first sentence should have read "don't have to sell me..."
Don't you think your admission that he couldn't do much as an actor kind of belies your admiration of his skill playing the fire chief? He did what he knew how to do, and someone was smart enough to cast him in the part. Is that real genius acting? I don't know.
I also think Marilyn poses an interesting question here. She doesn't know and I don't either but it's worth pondering. The very nature of performing is at the heart of the question. We tend to think of performing, of acting, of good acting, as a baroque collection of mannerisms and inflections that certain very talented individuals can marshal into a compelling screen presence. For a while, that was John Malkovich, then it was Christopher Walken. You didn't know why it was good acting, you just knew it was. But I think there's something to be said for the quiet ones. John Wayne was like that and I suppose Steve McQueen was, too. They didn't have a wide range, they didn't hit all the notes, but they did have depth and in their limited (and that's a debatable qualifier) method they were still skilled. They were still acting.
Millie, I watched The Honeymoon Machine last year on TCM. I agree, McQueen was good in it but the movie was a little sluggish for a comedy. Still, one doesn't expect much going into such a movie and I can't really complain with what I got.
Jason, no need to qualify your comment about Cary Grant, I know exactly what you're saying. Steve McQueen is a hard actor to sell people on, I admit, but I hope no one is misunderstanding that I am simply selling him on quiet, cool authority. Not dictatorial authority but the guy you trust. The guy who knows what's going on and so you don't question him. He was great in those types of roles.
Maybe the last great 'movie star' who could also act.
The phrase "a typical Steve McQueen role" means something pretty specific but not derogatory.
Andy, that's so true. He was a movie star, one of the big ones of the sixties, and one of the last to develop a real persona around himself, for better or worse.
There is one current actor who I think comes close (ok maybe two since Steve) but I am a little leery about bandying his(their) name in front of a bunch of cinema experts.
I wouldn't worry about that. You've never had any problem backing up your arguments for as long as I've known you. Besides, Marilyn knows more about foreign films and classic cinema than most people I can even think of and we clearly disagree on McQueen. I recently defended Sandra Bullock for Christ's sake and I mean, that's in print with my name attached to it. Go ahead, name that actor.
I can't stand it when The Towering Inferno is dismissed as a "disaster flick." There's great stuff in this. And crap. It's a nice package. Movies don't really give you that anymore.
Same here. I watched Earthquake too (that does have great miniature work) and it was awful. Just rank awful. I watched it first and wasn't expecting much from Inferno but then I saw it and was quite surprised. First of all, it's nearly three hours long (I remember asking you about that in disbelief just before I watched it) and damn if that three hours doesn't move along surely and steadily. It doesn't deserve to be ranked as a "disaster" flick alongside crapfests like Earthquake and Meteor, it's actually a very good film.
As to Marilyn's question, I think I'm reading it differently than you are and maybe Marilyn could clear that up for me. What's confusing me is this:
Don't you think your admission that he couldn't do much as an actor kind of belies your admiration of his skill playing the fire chief?
I read that as "Don't you think your admission that Marlon Brando couldn't do much as an actor in musical comedy kind of belies your admiration of his skill playing Terry Malloy?"
That's what I'm reading it as and my answer is, "No."
I totally understand. There were a few parts in particular (with the drunk sergeant guy) that went on WAAAY too long. But, I thought McQueen was excellent. His delivery of: "I still think that if I had gotten that bike for my 13th birthday...NONE of the would have happened" always makes me laugh hysterically.
Just to jump in on the Towering Inferno ...
That's a film that you could be made darn near great by cutting about 30 minutes from it. The parts that work, really work well. For as long as it takes to get there, I love the conclusion, and the scene just before it, in which McQueen reacts to the news that he's going to have to go to the roof to blow up the water tanks and will have to get down like everybody else. (I liked it enough, in fact, that I highlight it in my video essay, which you should check out, if you haven't yet.)
In cutting the film, though, O.J. saving the kitty must remain. It's just too perverse in hindsight.
Now O.J. Simpson is a perfect example of the bad wooden actor. His line delivery was flat, lifeless and horrible in everything he ever did.
Yes, the movie could use some trimming but I think I enjoyed it all anyway. And I love how the first deaths are Robert Wagner and Susan Flannery as if being punished for their shocking office affair. After that, everyone who dies is someone the audience dislikes. Everyone that's likeable gets to live.
After that, everyone who dies is someone the audience dislikes. Everyone that's likeable gets to live.
Not quite. Jennifer Jones is likable and dies quite horribly and the death of Gregory Sierra's bartender is very jarring. I think the point later on, though, is that characters tend to die in direct proportion to their selfishness which, if maybe not historically accurate, is in sympathy with the "safety first" tone of the movie.
This is a touching account of how you came to understand McQueen. Well done! Whatever McQueen was doing up there on the screen - along with the non-expressionism you define - he certainly always kept my attention. Along with the cool and the charisma, he had a playful twinkle in his eye that always added to his magic.
You're right, I was remembering it incorrectly. Richard Chamberlain's ultimate act of heinous selfishness stands out so much that it became the symbolic death scene of the movie.
I should also say how great William Holden was in his usual completely reliable way.
I was surprised to see Faye Dunaway in such a small role. After Bonnie and Clyde and another McQueen movie, The Thomas Crown Affair her star faded and she got smaller roles like this one and Little Big Man before Chinatown (same year as Inferno) made her huge again through the rest of the seventies with hits like 3 Days of the Condor and The Eyes of Laura Mars.
And her Oscar winning role in Network of course, two years later.
Hokahey, he held my attention too. In Papillon I find his straight, no-nonsense delivery a welcome relief from Dustin Hoffman's acting. I like Hoffman in it but I like McQueen a lot more.
Strange how The Hunter only gets attention because it was his last movie. I saw a little bit of it on television a few years ago, and enjoyed the heck out of the sequence where he's driving that enormous tractor and chasing after those car-driving thugs in the cornfield. But when I read that TV Guide only awards the movie one out of five stars, I decided to stop watching. Yeah, I based my choice of channel off TV Guide. Deal with it!!!
It's so, so hard for me to believe that Francis Ford Coppola seriously considered McQueen for the Captain Willard role in Apocalypse Now. Sheesh... wasn't he already a terminally sick actor by then? It's bad enough that Martin Sheen almost died of a heart attack over that role; I doubt McQueen would even have lasted the scene where he's drunk and attacking the mirror in the bedroom.
Not to bash McQueen himself. I think he's an actor much like Gary Cooper or Harrison Ford, and I like his performances. That alone made me want to contribute to this wonderful blogathon Jason has constructed... and on the perfect day, no less!
But when I read that TV Guide only awards the movie one out of five stars, I decided to stop watching. Yeah, I based my choice of channel off TV Guide. Deal with it!!!
Seriously, if you did that, you need to turn in your cinephile badge at the door and take out your saber so that I may break it over my knee. I mean, first, never let someone else's rating stop you, they could be an idiot. Second, don't ever read TV Guide for anything! What were you thinking?
Yeah, it's no great shakes as a movie, that's kind of undisputed, but it's fairly good stupid fun. I'd give it two stars so there TV Guide, take that!
But seriously, Adam, don't let me catch you doing that again.
I thought pretty much the exact same thing the last time I watched THE TOWERING INFERNO (althoug I didn't run to tell my wife afterwards -- what the fuck is that about?). He simply WAS the fire chief. The role could literally have not been played better.
One of my favorite McQueen moments, for the record, is in THE GREAT ESCAPE, when he tells Big X that the tunnel is a little short, but his face says "Let's go anyway." He's just so goddamn determined.
Word verification: dishotog
Responding to the most recent comment first:
Bill: I love that moment in The Great Escape, too. Here they are, short of the woods, and those prissy Englishmen are all distraught, and Hilts (McQueen) comes up with the plan for the signal rope and then flashes a smile that says, "How fucking cool is that idea!?!? We got it, no problem." That scene really does line up perfectly, as you said, with Greg's comments on Inferno. Good point!
Looping back to Apocalypse Now ...
Adam: McQueen was first offered Willard, turned it down, and then Coppola said, "OK, how about Kurtz?" McQueen reportedly liked that idea because he thought the character was a better fit and he was trying to avoid being out of the country for several months of shooting. (If he only knew...) But he stuck with his original asking price ($3 million, I think) and Coppola turned him down, only to pay Brando a ridiculous fee. Anyway, according to Marshall Terrill's 1993 biography, this all happened in early 1976. So the last McQueen film to run in theaters was Towering Inferno, and McQueen's still plenty vibrant there.
Alas, this was also the time that McQueen started to lose interest (Inferno was the cash-in he always wanted, and he felt he won his duel over Newman). He put on weight and, though his cancer wouldn't be diagnosed for years more, some suspect he was already starting to feel its effects.
Anyway, it's hard to imagine McQueen as Willard. But as Kurtz? As different as his performance would have been from Brando's (which was so mad and loose because Brando didn't want to learn any lines), I can imagine ways that would have worked.
OK Greg you asked for it, reading all this talk of Steve McQueen keeps making Bruce Willis come to mind. (Intellectually I keep thinking Clint Eastwood too, but it just doesn't feel right.)
Seems to me either you buy into Bruce's aura or you don't so long explanations are wasted.
Sorry to join the party so late. Here's the thing about the McQueen Argument, I'll call it. There are actors and then there are personalities (who are often more prone to become stars). Brando was an actor. John Wayne was a personality. Each has a skill for interpreting a part, but one conforms to the part, and in the other case, the part conforms to him/her. It doesn't make one superior to the other.
As someone here stated earlier, McQueen had a talent to play for the camera (Eastwood has it to). Not only are these actors often underplaying; they often request that their part in the script be written down (as in get rid of all this dialogue) because they realize their power lies in their stare, their physicality, gestures and all of the other actorly business that goes into a performance. A good example of this is the quite funny (and sexy), almost wordless chess sequence in THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR. Another example is the way he runs rings around the more experienced (and obviously competitive) Brynner in THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, even though Brynner is "acting" while McQueen is underplaying and has less dialogue to work with.
In fact, it was Jewison who said, in a documentary about McQueen, that the actor had a powerful command over the camera, one of his tricks being to stare down at the floor for a long time before suddenly looking up and straight into the camera locking his eyes with yours, and at that point he had you.
(althoug I didn't run to tell my wife afterwards -- what the fuck is that about?).
Well, asshat, I didn't run, I sauntered and it was like this, "You know what I realized watching that? McQueen's really great at spouting technical jargon and walking around like he actually knows what he's saying." And seriously, take a flat actor like Mr. O.J. Simpson in the same movie and you get nothing. Take a good actor and they'll probably fill it with "character." But McQueen hit the perfect center mark for it.
Jason, I just want to touch on one thing you said, about where he feel he won his duel with Newman. I of course agree but I don't think that was as appreciated as it could be by the industry. I mean, he gave a better, more believable, more solid performance and it wasn't some loser he was going up against, it was Paul Newman, a damn good actor!
Andy, I can see that completely. Willis created an aura, a smart-ass blue collar tough guy aura, that you either bought into or you didn't. Schwartzneggar attempted the same smart-ass persona but his acting skills never allowed him to take it as far as Willis, a much better performer.
I'm trying to think of someone who has the same stoicism that McQueen had though, as a persona I mean, and I can't. Willis is too much of a smart-ass, McQueen's not about cracking one-liners. Eastwood's too tough, too mean and taunting when he wants to kick your ass, again McQueen isn't. Schwarzeneggar leans on the bad one-liners and muscle.
But McQueen was different than all of them, wasn't he? He was just an average guy, no great physical build, no one-liners, no taunts, nothing. He's just there, getting the job done.
Jason - The other great thing about McQueen's face in that scene is that after he lays out his idea, he sort of winces, as if to say "Please say yes! Goddamnit, say it!"
Greg - Sorry, I meant "sauntered". I apologize for the typo.
they often request that their part in the script be written down (as in get rid of all this dialogue) because they realize their power lies in their stare, their physicality, gestures and all of the other actorly business that goes into a performance.
Tony, I guess that's what makes the Inferno performance work so well. With the exception of a couple of lines complaining about buildings this tall being made, a complaint I'm positive a fire chief would have, every line is a technical one. The performance is in McQueen's confidence with every word and how he carries himself. One of the things that impressed me early on in the movie was when he shows up, if you didn't know who McQueen was and hadn't seen him pull up in the fire chief car, you still would have immediately thought, "Yep, that's the guy in charge right there."
Bill - Thanks for the correction. Sometimes instead of sauntering I skip. Just last week I skipped into the living room and said to my wife, "Guess what" as I hopped up and down.
"What," she asked.
"Guess what," I said again, still hopping.
"What?!"
"Guess what."
"WHAT?!"
"I'm gonna watch a movie."
"That's great."
"Guess which one."
"Which one?"
"Guess."
"I don't know."
"Guess."
"Just tell me!"
"No, guess."
Anyway, that went on for about two more minutes before she finally stormed out of the room. And now I've forgotten what the movie was.
I'm trying to think of someone who has the same stoicism that McQueen had though, as a persona I mean, and I can't.
I agree Willis is a different type but they both have their specific testosterone based persona that is a large part of every role and when the role is right they own the screen. Every quality actor today works so damn hard to be completely unique in every role. Bruce and Clint are the only ones I can think of to have a constant
persona and still act. As opposed to a single note they simply play in each role.
McQueen is definitely unique, the best I can come up with to describe him is 'aggressive stoicism'. Robert Vaughn and Robert Mitchum can come close but not really and that is just grasping at straws to come up with someone. I think part of the McQueen persona is that he worked hard to make sure you knew that he didn't want to be liked.
Every quality actor today works so damn hard to be completely unique in every role. Bruce and Clint are the only ones I can think of to have a constant
persona and still act.
Great point, and that's why they're underestimated as actors, like McQueen or John Wayne before them where the public confuses playing a persona with not acting. But it is acting, within your persona and that's not always an easy thing to do.
And I like "aggressive stoicism" as a way to describe McQueen. He molded that persona so perfectly it really is difficult to come up with anyone else that's similar.
I'd summarize this "intangible" that I've read in the above comments as "personal style". This is what differentiates all the true/iconic stars from the the one's that can play specific types or specialize in particular charactor roles. Personal style is what magnetizes us to an actor and is that undefinable truth that each of them carry in their performances. Cary Grant, John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart, Robert Mitchum, etc. etc. etc....could any of them do Shakepeare or Chekhov? They could try - but why? They appeal to us because of how they carry themselves and because of their unique style. True stars like these are like a perfect note or melody in music - they hit some kind of perfect pitch within us that resonates, but like all art it is subjective and everyone has a right to like or dislike it. Mcqueen, for me, falls into the same category as Lee Marvin, Alain Delon, Charles Bronson - minimilism in words, optimization of movement, and a remote strength that is reassuring and calculated. Great acting has many facets, but think of the actors that can make us understand what they're thinking, not what they're saying. There aren't many, but I'd put Mcqueen right up there.
Yeah, Lee Marvin...he comes close, except that he always had an added element of "asshole" to his demeanor, which fit most of the characters he played. Marvin, even when he played good guys, often put across a vibe that made you think, however much you were rooting for him, that you maybe wouldn't want to know him, because at some point he'd probably get drunk and kick the shit out of you for no reason.
McQueen, on the other hand, as has been stated several times, was often just a guy, a blue collar guy who knew his job, and knew how to do it, and wanted the other guy to know HIS job, and know how to do IT. If you see what I'm saying.
This is what Greg said:
He played everything the same way and when it fit, like the Fire Chief, it worked like gangbusters!
This puts him in the John Wayne class of actors to me. A guy with a limited talent and a huge amount of charisma. The fire chief was late in his career, and shows that he never grew as an actor. People just knew how to cast him. I don't know if I'd call what he did genius. That's what I said before, and I don't think it's that hard to understand.
The fire chief was late in his career, and shows that he never grew as an actor. People just knew how to cast him. I don't know if I'd call what he did genius. That's what I said before, and I don't think it's that hard to understand.
No, it's not hard to understand what you're saying there, but our conclusions are different. We're all saying McQueen had a persona and charisma that he played out for his roles. So, if the role didn't fit it didn't work. But why such the determination to prove this about McQueen? Every actor has this to some extent.
I imagine Spencer Tracy cast in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert would have been a disasterous failure. Does that make him bad? Does the fact that he wasn't cast in flamboyant roles for most of his career because directors knew what he could play make him bad or "prove" he never grew as an actor? He nails the final speech in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner like no other and the role was created with him in mind knowing what his strengths were. So that would goes towards your argument that he never grew. But re-think it as he evolved instead of "never grew." We evolve and perfect and hone. That's what all great artists do.
I would say definitively that the artist arriving in his fourth or fifth decade of production and still changing everything up every two or three years is a, pardon my french, rank fucking idiot and talentless hack. Looking and looking and looking because the half-wit doesn't have the first clue as to how to develop his art form. I can't look at someone who arrives at the point where people know who he is because he's done such a good job of defining himself and call that a bad thing.
bill r.
Get your meaning perfectly. If you're familiar with Richard Stark's (Donald Westlake) Parker - McQueen may not fit the physical description, but he is who I always imagined in execution and manner for that character. Know your job and do it right - being the ultimate professional. His mindset translates from real life (cars, racing, precision, timing) into his performances.
Anonymous and Bill, I agree Lee Marvin does come close but like Bill said, he also has this "asshole" quality about him that McQueen didn't have.
I do know Parker very well, and I think Marvin is perfect, because Parker is an asshole. In the first novel, he accidentally kills an innocent woman, and is only bothered by the possible hassle it will cause him. He doesn't give a shit that she died.
I don't have time for a longer comment, but ...
One of the reasons I prefer McQueen to Eastwood (for the most part), is because McQueen seems comparatively natural -- with the exception of the scenes in which he was a confused mess, obviously.
Eastwood, to me, as minimalist as he is, sometimes is still putting a lot of performance into it -- to loop back to the Lancaster example. And the irony is that Eastwood doesn't need to do that.
(Note: When I'm talking about "performance," I'm not talking about when he squinted to the back row. That was always intentionally and playfully over the top. I'm talking about some of his less iconic moments where he seemed to not want to settle for his limitations and thus came off like he was trying too hard for a result that he could have gotten without trying hard at all. Hope that made some kind of sense. Gotta run.)
One more thing:
Not to be all self-promotional, but screw it ...
I do think I cover McQueen's strengths and weaknesses pretty fairly (with some good examples) in my video essay. So if folks haven't had time to check it out, give it a look.
Not trying to end the debate here but maybe to add to it.
Jason, I know exactly what you mean with your point about Eastwood, who I love, and that's why I thought GRAN TORINO was his best performance. That was Eastwood at his most natural.
Jason, just watched your video essay and it's great. Terrific job! That must've taken some time to work on and kudos all around. I recommend it to anyone reading this.
Yeah, that was superb, Jason. It's hard to know what to add, really, because you're so dead on about pretty much everything.
I will say that even if McQueen admitted that the dialogue in TOWERING INFERNO wasn't actually shit, but that, instead, he couldn't say it, the truth is that the dialogue probably wasn't that great. He stole the film, doing it the way that was comfortable for him.
Even though you aren't stingy when talking about his faults, your essay really just makes me want to watch a whole bunch of Steve McQueen movies. I've never seen THE HUNTER, and I know it's been sort of damned with faint praise here, but that clip you used at the beginning, of him holding the shotgun, scared and tense due to what I have to assume is a coming shootout in which he will be outnumbered, instantly made me want to see it. That one moment summed up all that was best about McQueen, all his strengths, perfectly. Maybe I'm wrong about the context, but if I'm correct, then he told the story, not just of his character, entirely with his face.
Also, what about that adaptation of Ibsen's ENEMY OF THE STATE? I remember watching a documentary about McQueen years ago that talked about that, but I can't remember if everybody hated it, or if he died before it was finished, or what. Since you didn't include it in his filmography at the end, I sort of assumed that maybe it was never finished...?
Also also, I own two McQueen movies I've never seen: HELL IS FOR HEROES and THE WAR LOVER. Maybe I should take one or both of those on the plane with me tonight...
The Ibsen film was finished and is available through the Warner Archive MOD program.
It isn't the most impressive film in the world, but his appearance in it sure is (crazy hair), and I don't recall finding his performance particularly weak as others have. I suspect it's because it was a few years after McQueen was at the height of his fame, so my expectations weren't unusually high.
I've never seen THE HUNTER, and I know it's been sort of damned with faint praise here, but that clip you used at the beginning, of him holding the shotgun, scared and tense due to what I have to assume is a coming shootout in which he will be outnumbered, instantly made me want to see it.
Bill, I thought the same thing and I have seen it but it's been a long while. He did that so well that seeing only a tiny clip, fleeting moment really, you understood everything correctly. Coming shootout, you've got to do it, you really don't want to.
Tony, I too don't think his performance is weak in Enemy which I saw on some cable channel years ago. I thought he was pretty good.
Also, what about that adaptation of Ibsen's ENEMY OF THE STATE?
Or for that matter Tony Scott's Enemy of the People?
But seriously, Bill, watch Hell is for Heroes - it'll change your life, and I'm not kidding.
Shut up Arbogast! It was an innocent mistake! Just shut up!
Also, I shall indeed watch HELL IS FOR HEROES, too sweet.
And then afterwards listen to Pat Benatar's "Hell is for Children." It'll change your... well, no, actually it won't change anything. In fact, it kind of sucks so, probably best you don't listen to it. Forget I said anything.
Thanks for the compliments on the video essay. Yes, Greg, it was a lot of work, in part because I'd never edited a single frame of video in my life until this year, so I'm learning with a lot of trail and error. You know how it goes.
Touching on a few points ...
* I left out Enemy in part because it's kind of an exception to McQueen's rule and I didn't want to force it in there. (At more than 16 minutes, it's already longer than I planned.)
* The Hunter is pretty lackluster overall, but, as usual, there are some McQueen moments. I think I'd like the film better if I wasn't watching it constantly aware that it was his last movie.
* On the "shit" dialogue in Towering Inferno. McQueen specifically cited his trouble with S and Z sounds. I'd never noticed that before, but, sure enough, when you watch that clip I used there are a shitload of S sounds and, sure enough, they seem to struggle coming out of his mouth. Still, Bill, you're right. The dialogue in the film goes down fits Harrison Ford's famous reaction to the dialogue in Star Wars: You can type it, but you can't say it.
* Hell is for Heroes and The War Lover are right around my fifth or sixth favorite McQueen films. They're quite different in the sense that in Hell McQueen hardly says anything and in The War Lover he talks quite a bit. Then again, in both films McQueen's character is introduced early, mostly disappears and then comes back for a big finish. Each film has several "McQueen moments." And Hell has the added value of Bob Newhart's debut, which is kind of surreal.
How about trial and error. Good grief.
And Hell has the added value of Bob Newhart's debut
The movie, to me, belongs to Mike Kellin. His final scene should be shown at Army recruiting seminars. That's war, cadets.
Jason, Arbo - Never seen Hell is for Heroes but Bob Newhart's debut is enough to make me curious.
And Jason, again, great job on the video post. I think it's much better than any other's I've seen quite frankly and you have a good narrating voice.
I really hate when I hear that John Wayne had a limited range. He was a powerfully expressive actor. If he has a limited range, then all actors have a limited range because most actors are good at one type of role and tend to play it over and over again with minor variations. Especially stars. Let me put it this way: Name me five actors who could effectively play a John Wayne role.
By the way, I liked The Hunter because it had Kathryn Harrold, my '80s movie crush, in it. When is somebody going to do a blog-a-thon devoted to her?
Larry, if I implied in any way that John Wayne had a limited range I certainly didn't mean it in a bad way. In fact, I meant exactly how you just described it and I think it's necessary to praise the more stoic actors. Again, they get accused of being wooden but it's not the same thing and that's what I hate: if you're not overacting every line you're wooden.
Like I said somewhere in here, I like McQueen a lot more in Papillon than Dustin Hoffman because Hoffman won't stop acting!
I like most actors more than Dustin Hoffman.
Bill, I think Hoffman's got a lot of talent, don't get me wrong, but like you, he's never been a favorite actor. I like him best in roles like Marathon Man, Kramer vs Kramer and The Graduate where he's kind of himself, only dealing with stress. But for whatever reason, in Papillon, he just bugs the living crap out of me. That performance is so massively affected.
Just trying to clarify for some folks the whole persona/limited range.
The best metaphor I have come up with to describe it is that actors like Steve McQueen, John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, etc etc all have a personal wardrobe that is very versatile and fits easily in a suitcase. Where ever they go, they simply chose the clothes from that suit case that are most applicable. The result means that sometimes they are a little over or under dressed but the clothes usually fit them so well that no one really notices.
The Brandos and Hoffmans et al buy themselves a new wardrobe for every occasion. Their clothes thus always match the environment but may not always fit perfectly or suit their body type/color.
It doesn't really matter where the hack actors get their attire. They simply buy a popular style off the rack regardless of how it fits them or situation.
Andy, that's a great metaphor to use. By the end of his career Brando had decided on a favorite t-shirt and bermuda shorts that he wore regardless of whether anyone thought it was a good idea or not. Before that, he changed all the time.
And to clarify my point earlier about actors and artists being accused of not growing because they chose to edit and hone and develop a style, like Spencer Tracy, and artists changing all the time being idiots, I was speaking of constant change, in kind not just degree.
For instance, an artist like Picasso has different periods which all reflect a change in degree, not kind. Had he shifted from representational to cubist to splatter to pop to graphic design, etc, he wouldn't be the artist that received so much praise, he'd be an all over the place dilettante.
The worst actors, and artists, are the ones who do that: Try something new every time. Unfortunately, the ones who do such a good job of honing a persona or style that directors get to the point where they know what to cast them in and even write roles for them, get written off as "playing themselves" or some such other backhanded compliment that denigrates the actor and his talent.
I was reacting to someone else's comment, not yours. We're square, pilgrim.
I reckon we are.
I think Charles Bronson would've been the best Parker. Bronson as Parker and James Coburn as Grofield, if Walter Hill had directed them in BUTCHER'S MOON in 1975 instead of HARD TIMES. But I digress...
I'm late to the party, but I think Marilyn is way off about McQueen being bad in THE GREAT ESCAPE. That's one of the films that helped make him a superstar. In fact, it was his scene stealing performance in NEVER SO FEW a couple of years earlier, also for director John Sturges, that first caught people's attention. So he was capable of more than downplaying as macho professionals or moody characters. He made a name for himself as a bit of a hot dog. Without looking it up to make sure, wasn't his role in NEVER SO FEW originally intended for Sammy Davis Jr.?
I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but McQueen did not have the strongest voice, and he knew this and figured out little physical things to do that would compensate for this. One of the brilliant things about his TOWERING INFERNO performance is the little things he does with his hands that constantly draw the viewer's attention away from Paul Newman whenever they're on screen together. And I doubt Newman knew what McQueen was up to until opening night.
Obviously I agree about The Great Escape, I love him in that. And I thought about the whole Newman/McQueen competition too while watching The Towering Inferno and thought to myself, "I bet Newman thought he was the winner when they were filming it, what with his multiple Oscar noms to McQueen's one and his starring in the previous year's top money maker and Best Picture winner, The Sting," etc. And then, like you said, opening night rolls around and Newman's saying, "Fuck! Where'd that performance come from?He's the fucking fire chief! It wasn't supposed to happen this way!"
I'll say it again: When I watched Towering Inferno I completely believed that was a fire chief and it was played by one of the most recognizable men of the twentieth century! I should've seen a star, and instead I saw the chief. That's pretty fucking impressive in my book.
Post a Comment