There is no doubt, Mario Lanza had *each and every tool *to become ( with
coaching and good health) the Greatest of all the tenors. Even his checkered
and short career will live forever!
What I do wish, though, in the case of the scene that immediately
follows the one you've just described, is that Anthony Mann had not
chosen to film Lanza in such extreme close-up. I'm referring to the
shot in which we see Mario waking up after (presumably) weeks of being
delirious with malaria. Given that he's actually *heavier* than in the
preceding scene, the break in continuity is disconcerting. What's
more, you don't film a 260-pound leading man in close-up! The least
they could have done is give him a few days of beard growth to conceal
his weight -- and at the same time provide the story with a bit of
realism. (Or were audiences expected to assume that kind Sarita was
shaving Lanza every day while he was unconscious?!)
Come to think of it, a bearded Lanza for the Mexico scenes would have
worked well in the context of the story. Credit should go to Warners,
though, for having the bravery to film Lanza when he was so heavy.
They were taking quite a risk in terms of the box office; in fact, I
can't think of any other films from that period that featured romantic
leading men as overweight as Mario was here.
I recently watched TGC and ,Again, I was struck by how good Lanza's
acting was.......very credible, indeed. Yet, it seems that even *this*
attribute was played down by his critics! I just don't get it.....the
bias seems to touch all aspects of anything_Lanza. True, he wasn't
exactly outstanding in some of his "fluff" movies .. ( who could have
been in such light fare ) , but I think he came across great in the
Great Caruso and Serenade.( I am equally certain he would have been
great in the Student Prince, as well). It makes you wonder if the
great gift to us of Lanza will ever be universally recognized?
--Joe
Ms. Basinger's comments are certainly a generalization! For one thing,
"great loud singer" hardly describes Lanza's role in Because You're
Mine, and certainly not The Student Prince. In fact, the only film it
really applies to -- and even then, only up to a point -- is his
boorish fisherman Pepe Duvall in Toast of New Orleans.
As for Lanza's "type," Basinger misses the point that there was, in
fact, no such thing! Where else in the history of 20th century cinema
is there anyone remotely similar to his screen persona? He defies
convenient pigeonholing.
I'll have more to say in a few days! :-)
Cheers
Derek
I’d like to comment on Mario’s acting. I’ve done some acting in my younger days and all I can tell you is that if you haven’t had at least some basic training (and I didn’t ) it’s a hell of a lot more difficult than one might think. The secret of acting, in my opinion, is to come across as natural and genuine as possible, and I think this is precisely what Lanza’s acting conveys, not only in The Great Caruso, but also in all his first four films. Believe me, it can be quite daunting when you are standing there in front of a camera trying to deliver lines and emote at the same time in a reasonably convincing manner.
There are things that Lanza does in his last three movies that I don’t like but I cannot fault his performance in The Great Caruso.
Dear Armando and Derek, The subject about Lanza's acting ability always seems controversial and rather hard to sum up. Just briefly, it seems to me that there are great actors born to do so as Lanza was born to sing. And give them any role, any director, any playwright, and their abilities shine through even if conditions are less than ideal. And then there are actors who do certain kinds of roles well--perhaps drama, but not comedy; stage, but not screen, vice versa and etcetera. Lanza, I think, falls into that latter category, that of acting certain kinds of roles in certain kinds of situations and perhaps even certain parts of the script of an entire movie quite well. In fact, more than quite well--totally engagingly as the focal point of the movie--and not just because of star billing. And it's quite amazing, given the conditions you all have pointed to--bad scripts, limited dramatic coaching, one-take directors, studio deadlines. But there are rough patches, undoubtedly in part because of those limitations.
Does it seem reasonable to project, though, that his acting talents were made for the operatic stage, for that unique combination of dramatic ability and musicality that represents the pinnacle of operatic performance? Lee Ann