You knew what you were getting from a Humphrey Bogart perfomance; you knew what to expect from a Jimmy Stewart performance. (Except for that one Thin Man movie). The joy was in seeing how you got there. Both of them were fine and effective actors, as well as iconic movie stars.
I might add Rope for Jimmy Stewart.
But part of the issue is that things have changed a great deal since the heyday of the Bogarts and Stewarts in two interrelated ways. Back then, the studio controlled the stars -- and tended to pigeonhole stars in formulas that worked. Warners wouldn't let Bogart be a romantic lead or comic foil because audiences liked him as a tough guy.
Also, the studios worked their stars. Filming only took a couple months, and it wasn't unusual for stars to make several movies a year and dozens in a career. Counting bit parts, uncrediteds, and the like, Bogart made over 75 movies -- and Stewart over 90. (Loretta Young -- over 100.) That pace isn't going to happen today. (ETA: By contrast, Collateral is only Cruise's 27th.)
I'm watching
Prime Suspect
on BBC-America -- Comcast claims it from this year but David Thewlis, Helen Mirren and Ciaran Hinds all look suspiciously young. So, I go to the IMDB to see when it says that David Thewlis was in
Prime Suspect
. 1993. Huh.
And found an entry for this film by Terrence Malick about Jamestown with Christian Bale as John Rolfe, Colin Farrell as John Smith and Michael Greyeyes playing somebody named Wobblehead. Interesting.
And there I was thinking I'd noticed you discussing something different from my starting point, Sean. It just looks like we have a different definition of icon. If icon isn't the word you use to describe what I've defined, switch icon in all my posts for what your word is.
I don't have the urge to defend my usage of the word -- it's lightly supported by dictionaries and things like icons in UIs, but it's hardly worth going to war over.
So, to be clear -- got nothing to argue with you about. Just defining
my
terms.
Robin, did you feel the lack of his penis?
Robin, did you feel the lack of his penis?
I haven't seen it and I feel the lack of CF's penis.
I ALWAYS feel the lack of CF's penis, ita. But didn't think it was needed in the film--there is enough emotional nudity, if you see what I mean. Plus a pretty pretty shot of CF walking down the hall which reveals the torso down to millimeters of the aforesaid member.
Eh, if I feel an overpowering need to see that, I'll go rent Tigerland. I'm far more concerned with his handling the emotional requirements of the role, which it sounds as if he's done superbly.
x-post with Robin.
banana:
I just finished watching my DVD of Aaron Vanek's short film
The Yellow Sign
that he was kind enough to send me. Very good handling of mood via cinematography, and an interesting updating/re-imagining of the story, though the lead actor didn't work all that well for me.
However, the last thing you want to do when watching this movie (which includes a very creepy moving puppet in some sequences) is look up and realize your plush Cthulhu is no longer sitting where it's supposed to be.
I saw Beyond the Valley of the Dolls last night. One truly screwed-up movie.
I couldn't stop laughing for the last half hour. Which can't have been the reaction the makers intended.
Roger Ebert co-wrote it. Now I know where he gets his knowledge of bad movies.
Camp-bad, yes. But bad.
Not for the kids. If for no other reason than, they shouldn't think that actual adults may behave the way some of these characters act.
