Oct 20, 2023·edited Oct 20, 2023Liked by Roy Edroso
Tim Holt is a genius. Don't forget him in Treasure of Sierra Madre!
He could have been one of the biggest stars in Hollywood he had that kind of talent. He discovered early on though that he really liked to make Westerns.
He loved camping out in the hills and riding around on horses. He made a ton of B Westerns for RKO. He also made a butt ton of money doing it.
Another " Huh?" Welles casting decision was Jeanette Nolan as Lady Macbeth.
Everyone was like - who? She generally gets grief from the hoity toity critics. I think she's just fine. There's a real sense of her character getting in over her head that makes perfect sense to me.
Lady Macbeth's demise in the film is unforgettable. The castle this all takes place in is on the top of a mountain for some reason. She slips out a window or off a balcony falls very quietly,
very far to her death.
I've been taking a deep dive in the Columbia "B" movie Westerns The last couple of years.She was in a lot of them!, Mostly as the second or third female lead.. I don't recall her as being particularly memorable in any of them.
Not like she was in Macbeth.
Now I know how I'm going to open my post-apocalyptic novel. Main character sitting at his breakfast table drinking coffee, repeatedly refreshing Gmail , waiting to receive a substack column he gets 5 days a week that he's grown accustomed to reading while he drinks his morning coffee.
The column, a well-written, practical guide to success in nearly all aspects of everyday life, was made a huge difference in the way that he lives. He still goes through 8 or 9 different jobs a year, sure, but he's finding and losing better jobs.
That's what counts.
Our hero is beginning to get worried. The column's almost an hour behind schedule. Good morning sunlight is starting to show through the windows.
Then, our protagonist realizes in sudden shock - The light is flooding in the west facing windows. It's not from sunrise -
Indianapolis has been vaporized in a nuclear attack!
Before you know it, there are glow in the dark zombies shambling up Main Street.
Jack Nicholson in The Shining. This is kind of a tepid defense, I won’t give the performance a ringing endorsement and I think the movie would have been even better if he’d made slightly different choices with the character, but it’s hard to believe an actor of Nicholson’s caliber working with a director like Kubrick decided to say “fuck it, I'll give a BAD performance." And Nicholson’s always been a little hammy, he’s never been a subtle actor like Mark Rylance, who can be perfectly still and saying nothing while still communicating that a half a dozen things are crossing his mind.
Most of the criticism is Nicholson played the part like a slightly unhinged jerk from the start. That’s true, but I think he made that choice (or Kubrick made it for him) because only a man who was a cynical and egotistical asshole, but who had now had his ego smashed down to the point he was reduced to taking a job as a caretaker, would have been so susceptible to the Overlook’s influence. The character has to be a deeply flawed, resentful, humiliated-by-life guy who is right on the edge to begin with, lashing out sarcastically at his wife, emotionally distant from his son, or the transformation to insanity/possession makes no sense.
“He’s doing it so well that audience identifies the weakness of the character for the weakness of the actor.”
Hmmm. I’m put in mind of my reaction to the 1998 film 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴. Minnie Driver is the heroine, an impoverished Jewish intellectual in the early/mid-nineteenth century whom circumstances compel to reinvent herself as a daughter of the Church of England, and to take up a position in the household of some Scottish gentry. The master of the house is one of these Victorian amateurs, a gentleman scientist working to refine the infant art of photography, and Minnie D takes on collateral roles as his lab assistant and mistress. Now the part, as written, directed and performed, is intended to compel our admiration for the protagonist, and it apparently won over a majority of the critics. The spousal unit and I were less impressed: it seemed to us both something like making Glenn Close the heroine of 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘈𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, rabbit and all. In consequence, I have conceived toward Ms. Driver, unfairly, an arbitrary—I will not say dislike, but a predisposition not to seek out her performances, and to approach those I do catch with reservations.
This is tough. I can think of a bunch of performances that were universally panned by critics and audiences but I agree with the verdicts. Or performances that I thought were terrible but others didn't. (To be fair to the actors, sometimes they were just in really bad movies to begin with.) The closest I can come to the assignment: There were some who panned Ethan Hawke in "Hamlet" and the performance of Bill Murray in the film, and mostly just the movie itself, but there were many who didn't, and I liked it all.
So instead, this may be well known but here's a fun quote about "Jaws: The Revenge" from Michael Caine addressed to his critics. "I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific."
Sorry, don't think I got something specifically to the prompt, but your comments on Tim Holt in Magnificent Ambersons made me think about good actors playing limited characters. Limited in their intelligence, in empathy, in emotional range. And that got me thinking of the sad film career of Dana Andrews, who I know for Best Years of Our Lives and Laura, but next time I pick him up he's the scheming and incompetent Admiral Broderick in Otto Preminger's In Harms Way, and then later he's the REALLY incompetent mad scientist Sorenson in the sci-fi film Crack in the World (I think we can say that if your work results in a sizeable portion of the Earth's crust spinning off into space, you are really not very good at your job.) So "Sucks at his job" and "Refuses to listen or learn" don't give even a good actor much to work with, but Andrews was a trouper and he did what he could with what he was given.
How about both thinking the performance is terrible, and later thinking it's great? I.e., Elliot Gould in The Long Good-Bye. When I first saw it I thought, "Oh, come on. That's not Marlowe." Later, though, I thought, "Well, wait..."
Was watching Lawrence of Arabia with a couple who'd never seen it, and they absolutely hated O'Toole. Apparently they'd never seen O'Toole in anything, and this was their reaction: The movie would be good without him! But he's a terrible actor! The worst! He can't even hide that he's gay, it keeps sneaking through!
I generally don't watch a huge number of movies, and when I do I don't usually pick out good or poor actor performances. My idea is more about is the movie overall good or bad. I also don't really care what other people think about the movie or the performances. Sometimes if the same actor appears in several movies I like, I might start to think they are good actors.
Overall, I don't have much to say about this category, but I did want to explain why.
The entire cast of "Raising Arizona."
(Jeez — Peter Sellers was robbed!)
Anyone in "Mommy Dearest." Overwrought, overplayed, and yet magnificent
Tim Holt is a genius. Don't forget him in Treasure of Sierra Madre!
He could have been one of the biggest stars in Hollywood he had that kind of talent. He discovered early on though that he really liked to make Westerns.
He loved camping out in the hills and riding around on horses. He made a ton of B Westerns for RKO. He also made a butt ton of money doing it.
Another " Huh?" Welles casting decision was Jeanette Nolan as Lady Macbeth.
Everyone was like - who? She generally gets grief from the hoity toity critics. I think she's just fine. There's a real sense of her character getting in over her head that makes perfect sense to me.
Lady Macbeth's demise in the film is unforgettable. The castle this all takes place in is on the top of a mountain for some reason. She slips out a window or off a balcony falls very quietly,
very far to her death.
I've been taking a deep dive in the Columbia "B" movie Westerns The last couple of years.She was in a lot of them!, Mostly as the second or third female lead.. I don't recall her as being particularly memorable in any of them.
Not like she was in Macbeth.
Now I know how I'm going to open my post-apocalyptic novel. Main character sitting at his breakfast table drinking coffee, repeatedly refreshing Gmail , waiting to receive a substack column he gets 5 days a week that he's grown accustomed to reading while he drinks his morning coffee.
The column, a well-written, practical guide to success in nearly all aspects of everyday life, was made a huge difference in the way that he lives. He still goes through 8 or 9 different jobs a year, sure, but he's finding and losing better jobs.
That's what counts.
Our hero is beginning to get worried. The column's almost an hour behind schedule. Good morning sunlight is starting to show through the windows.
Then, our protagonist realizes in sudden shock - The light is flooding in the west facing windows. It's not from sunrise -
Indianapolis has been vaporized in a nuclear attack!
Before you know it, there are glow in the dark zombies shambling up Main Street.
Jack Nicholson in The Shining. This is kind of a tepid defense, I won’t give the performance a ringing endorsement and I think the movie would have been even better if he’d made slightly different choices with the character, but it’s hard to believe an actor of Nicholson’s caliber working with a director like Kubrick decided to say “fuck it, I'll give a BAD performance." And Nicholson’s always been a little hammy, he’s never been a subtle actor like Mark Rylance, who can be perfectly still and saying nothing while still communicating that a half a dozen things are crossing his mind.
Most of the criticism is Nicholson played the part like a slightly unhinged jerk from the start. That’s true, but I think he made that choice (or Kubrick made it for him) because only a man who was a cynical and egotistical asshole, but who had now had his ego smashed down to the point he was reduced to taking a job as a caretaker, would have been so susceptible to the Overlook’s influence. The character has to be a deeply flawed, resentful, humiliated-by-life guy who is right on the edge to begin with, lashing out sarcastically at his wife, emotionally distant from his son, or the transformation to insanity/possession makes no sense.
“He’s doing it so well that audience identifies the weakness of the character for the weakness of the actor.”
Hmmm. I’m put in mind of my reaction to the 1998 film 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴. Minnie Driver is the heroine, an impoverished Jewish intellectual in the early/mid-nineteenth century whom circumstances compel to reinvent herself as a daughter of the Church of England, and to take up a position in the household of some Scottish gentry. The master of the house is one of these Victorian amateurs, a gentleman scientist working to refine the infant art of photography, and Minnie D takes on collateral roles as his lab assistant and mistress. Now the part, as written, directed and performed, is intended to compel our admiration for the protagonist, and it apparently won over a majority of the critics. The spousal unit and I were less impressed: it seemed to us both something like making Glenn Close the heroine of 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘈𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, rabbit and all. In consequence, I have conceived toward Ms. Driver, unfairly, an arbitrary—I will not say dislike, but a predisposition not to seek out her performances, and to approach those I do catch with reservations.
Robert Redford got slagged for The Great Gatsby, but I think he nailed just who and what Gatsby was.
This is tough. I can think of a bunch of performances that were universally panned by critics and audiences but I agree with the verdicts. Or performances that I thought were terrible but others didn't. (To be fair to the actors, sometimes they were just in really bad movies to begin with.) The closest I can come to the assignment: There were some who panned Ethan Hawke in "Hamlet" and the performance of Bill Murray in the film, and mostly just the movie itself, but there were many who didn't, and I liked it all.
So instead, this may be well known but here's a fun quote about "Jaws: The Revenge" from Michael Caine addressed to his critics. "I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific."
I always enjoyed Jim Brown in whatever he was in.
Of course, OJ was pretty funny in the Naked Gun movies.
Sorry, don't think I got something specifically to the prompt, but your comments on Tim Holt in Magnificent Ambersons made me think about good actors playing limited characters. Limited in their intelligence, in empathy, in emotional range. And that got me thinking of the sad film career of Dana Andrews, who I know for Best Years of Our Lives and Laura, but next time I pick him up he's the scheming and incompetent Admiral Broderick in Otto Preminger's In Harms Way, and then later he's the REALLY incompetent mad scientist Sorenson in the sci-fi film Crack in the World (I think we can say that if your work results in a sizeable portion of the Earth's crust spinning off into space, you are really not very good at your job.) So "Sucks at his job" and "Refuses to listen or learn" don't give even a good actor much to work with, but Andrews was a trouper and he did what he could with what he was given.
I can't watch John Wayne because I feel like he's not acting, he's *posing.*
As his flailings against the progress of time and society become more obviously ineffectual, George’s anger becomes more pinched and emasculated
I've never seen the movie, but George sounds like he'd be a Fox News viewer. Anyway, I vote for Diane Keaton in The Godfather.
How about both thinking the performance is terrible, and later thinking it's great? I.e., Elliot Gould in The Long Good-Bye. When I first saw it I thought, "Oh, come on. That's not Marlowe." Later, though, I thought, "Well, wait..."
Was watching Lawrence of Arabia with a couple who'd never seen it, and they absolutely hated O'Toole. Apparently they'd never seen O'Toole in anything, and this was their reaction: The movie would be good without him! But he's a terrible actor! The worst! He can't even hide that he's gay, it keeps sneaking through!
I generally don't watch a huge number of movies, and when I do I don't usually pick out good or poor actor performances. My idea is more about is the movie overall good or bad. I also don't really care what other people think about the movie or the performances. Sometimes if the same actor appears in several movies I like, I might start to think they are good actors.
Overall, I don't have much to say about this category, but I did want to explain why.
This almost makes me want to try to watch The Magnificent Ambersons again.