Elliot Gould

[really real]

I tried to watch Ruby Sparks to see what Elliot Gould was up to. He
played a small part as the psychiatrist, and was very good, except
that he's put on a ton of weight.

Elliot Gould's decline is one of the more interesting Hollywood
stories. He was a heart throb and a leading man during the 70s but he
seems to have sunk into bad minor roles.

When he played themother's wimpy liberal boyfriend in American X, I
knew something had gone wrong in America.

And he was good in Bugsy but again, it was a wimpy role.

Did Barbara Streisand poison he career, the way Frank Sinatra
destroyed Tommy Sands?

[Tom Benton]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 07:30:19 -0800, really real <reall...@shaw.ca>
wrote:

I certainly never saw him as a heart throb type (not that I am really
in a position to make that assessment) but he did have a lot of work
for a while. Can't say that I really saw why he was so hot but
something was working for him.


_____________________________________
Procrastinate now! Do not put it off!

Ellen DeGeneres

[really real]

>
> I certainly never saw him as a heart throb type (not that I am really
> in a position to make that assessment) but he did have a lot of work
> for a while. Can't say that I really saw why he was so hot but
> something was working for him.
>

Getting Straight, the movie he made right after Mash, had him as the
romantic lead, as did, sort of, Bob and Carole, Ted and Alice.


His role in Long Goodbye and California Split had a sort of heart
throbbishness.

But you're right - he wasn't really the heat throb type. He was heroic
though.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:39:31 PM UTC-5, really real wrote:

> But you're right - he wasn't really the heat throb type. He was heroic
> though.

He was the genial anti-hero in a time of angst-ridden anti-heroes.

[Tom Benton]

I guesss that is it. His schtick fit the times but it doesn't look it
lasted all that well.

[Tom]

Why do you think his career was in decline?

According to imdb, he's worked every year since 1968. Have you
considered the possibility that, as he's aged, he wants to work less?
He's 74, for chrissakes.

As for Ruby Sparks, so what if he's gained weight... some consider
that a sign of prosperity.

Regarding his divorce from Barbara Streisand, which was in 1971, how
did his career suffer. He made some very good movies in the '70s.

Tom

[trotsky]

Hell, I thought he was one of the high points of the Ocean's 11 movies.

[moviePig]

He has the age, stature, and quite possibly even talent to be a high
point of any movie he's in nowadays.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[Tom]

Exactly... which leaves me still wondering the point of the OP's OP.

Tom

[really real]

>>
>> He has the age, stature, and quite possibly even talent to be a high
>> point of any movie he's in nowadays.
>>
>> --
>>
>> - - - - - - - -
>> YOUR taste at work...
>> http://www.moviepig.com
>
> Exactly... which leaves me still wondering the point of the OP's OP.

My point is that Elliot Gould is no longer a household name, but a bit
player in movies. True, he has had a long career, but Wikepedia points
out the brief height of his career was in 1970.

Jack Nicholson, Dustin Hoffman, Robert Redford, Michael Caine, Al Pacino
and Harrison Ford are all around the same age.

And if someone still thinks that getting fat is a sign of prosperity, I
think they should stop watching so many movies and get out more.

[Michael OConnor]

> Jack Nicholson, Dustin Hoffman, Robert Redford, Michael Caine, Al Pacino
> and Harrison Ford are all around the same age.
>
> And if someone still thinks that getting fat is a sign of prosperity, I
> think they should stop watching so many movies and get out more.

I think the problem with Elliott Gould has always been a lack of
range. He was never quite imposing enough to play a dark villain, or
a bona fide action hero, and he never had the looks to be a
conventional leading man; he was effective as a wise cracking smart
alec who doesn't take himself too seriously; The Last Detail was the
one time after MASH that I thought his schtick really worked. MASH
made him a huge overnight star, and he was perhaps overexposed in the
70's; like William Hurt in the 80's, it just seemed like every other
film that came out in the 70's starred Elliott Gould, and in most
cases he seemed miscast. After pretty much disappearing from the big
screen for about 20 years, he reemerged as a supporting character
actor in feature films about 15 years ago, and he is effective in that
role.

Compared to the list above; Nicholson played a number of iconic
characters, had range, and had a presence on screen, and could be very
charming and could also embrace his dark side in a way few other
leading men could. Hoffman had range, good looks and acting chops.
Redford had good looks, not much range, and when the plum leading
roles started to dry up, he started directing films which kept him in
the game. Michael Caine could act, great range, and although he
starred in his share of dreadful films, he still always managed to
raise the level of whatever dreck he was in. Pacino had looks, and
screen presence, played several iconic film characters, and could act,
although the last 30 years it always seems like he tries to recreate
his performance from the end of And Justice for All where he screams
the second half of his sentences. Ford had rugged good looks, little
to no range, played two of the most famous action heroes in movie
history, and had a ten year run in the 80's as the biggest action star
in Hollywood; in a lot of ways Ford is similar to John Wayne without
the Wayne swagger. Elliott Gould had none of those things going for
him; not much range, he wasn't terribly handsome, watching him, you
always knew it was Elliott Gould acting. Once they realized he was a
one trick pony who was effective as a wiseacre and couldn't do much
else, his career as a leading man was over.

[bermuda999]

On Sunday, November 11, 2012 4:46:04 PM UTC-5, Michael OConnor wrote:
> > Jack Nicholson, Dustin Hoffman, Robert Redford, Michael Caine, Al Pacino
>
> > and Harrison Ford are all around the same age.
>
> >
>
> > And if someone still thinks that getting fat is a sign of prosperity, I
>
> > think they should stop watching so many movies and get out more.
>
>
>
> I think the problem with Elliott Gould has always been a lack of
> range. He was never quite imposing enough to play a dark villain, or
> a bona fide action hero, and he never had the looks to be a
> conventional leading man; he was effective as a wise cracking smart
> alec who doesn't take himself too seriously; The Last Detail was the
> one time after MASH that I thought his schtick really worked.

I agree with your entire evaluation, except could you mean here "The Long Goodbye"?

[tomcervo]

He did his best work with Robert Altman, who died, and who doesn't
have many fans in Hollywood after "The Player", which is also a pretty
good short intro to why Hollywood movies now are such sh*t.
"McCabe and Mrs. Miller" was once my favorite Altman, but the
knowledge that he wanted Gould for the lead, and had to settle for Mr.
Hollywood, ruins it now.

[moviePig]

Damn near. Thanks for sharing,,,

[Bastette]

Tom wrote:

> According to imdb, he's worked every year since 1968. Have you
> considered the possibility that, as he's aged, he wants to work less?
> He's 74, for chrissakes.

> As for Ruby Sparks, so what if he's gained weight... some consider
> that a sign of prosperity.

And in any case, it has nothing to do with his skill as an actor.

Bastette