Angel Martin vs. Ed Norton?
Rick Huff
Stuart Margolin's portrayal of Angel Martin. Take the second-season
classic, "Chicken Little Is a Little Chicken," aired November 14, 1975,
which I watched again today. Martin's TOTAL lack of redeeming values
provides the perfect accent, and comedic counterpart, to Jim Rockford's
endearing character qualities.
Would not Martin sell out his own mother, were she alive (instead, he
frequently used his need to care for her as an excuse why he was broke),
whereas Rockford, despite his roguish manner, remained loyal to all of
his friends and people in a jam, to a fault (and even after Angel tried
to sell him down the river to save his own neck!).
This set me to wondering if the Rockford Files would have been nearly as
successful without Angel Martin, even as Art Carney's Ed Norton
character played such a crucial role in the success of The
Honeymooners? I just checked and found that Angel appeared in EVERY ONE
of the Rockford Files movies, which seems to speak for itself.
Any thoughts?
Rick
Adam H. Kerman
>It's hard for me to think of favorite RF episodes without thinking of
>Stuart Margolin's portrayal of Angel Martin. . . .
>This set me to wondering if the Rockford Files would have been nearly as
>successful without Angel Martin, even as Art Carney's Ed Norton
>character played such a crucial role in the success of The
>Honeymooners? I just checked and found that Angel appeared in EVERY ONE
>of the Rockford Files movies, which seems to speak for itself.
James Garner and Stuart Margolin played well off each other. Margolin first
appeared with Garner in the 1971 tv western series "Nichols". Margolin was
in the reprisal series "Brett Maverick" from the early '80's, and a supporting
cast member, producer, and director of the awful adaptation of the Joseph
Waumbaugh novel, "The Glitter Dome", in which Garner starred.
It was fine to have Angel appear in the post-series tv movies, given that they
were aired months if not years apart. Angel wasn't used well in a couple of
the movies. But if Angel had been on "The Rockford Files" every week, instead
of only occassionally, he would have worn out his welcome.
That being said, no, I don't think it was necessary to the success and
enjoyment of the show to have Angel as an occassional character, but he
certainly added to the rich fabric of the sleazy world Rockford found
himself in. Essentially, Garner was a loner.
If Angel had been on the show every week, he would have been turned into
Huggy Bear on "Starsky and Hutch". You know, the know-it-all slime ball that
knows what is being discussed in private meetings of top crime bosses, just a
crutch to disguise bad writing.
One show that used that stock character well was "Night Heat"'s Tony Rosati as
Whitey, the guy who sold notions in the middle of the night and knew
everything. Rosati is a stand-up comic from Toronto. The character was a
running gag, a brief respit needed during an otherwise serious show.
Hell, on "Rockford", Angel was hired from time to time to GATHER information,
truly making him a necessary part of the plot.
No, Angel is not an Ed Norton. Rockford and Angel were not set up as a
best buddy act, thank goodness.
Gary Moheban
news:nEQ17.117284$mG4.57...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
>But if Angel had been on "The Rockford Files" every week, instead of only
occassionally, he would have worn out his welcome>
I agree. Angel was a great character, maybe one of the best non-regular
"characters" ever in a TV series. But if he had been in too many episodes,
his character's "charm" would have been diluted and he would have gotten
old. As it was, he was in just the right amount of episodes so that you
were very happy to see him when he was on but you also never got tired of
him.
I also agree that he was not just a quirky throw-in character designed to
add color or laughs. He was indeed very central to the plot of many
episodes, whether it be his skill in gathering important info. for Jim
(which he was damn good at) or mucking things up which often added
interesting twists to the various plots.
This thread reminded me that the only Rockford movie I really didn't like
that well was "A Blessing in Disguise". It had its funny moments, but I
felt it was too over the top with Angel being this rich, powerful
televangelist instead of the low level scam artist he really is. Didn't
seem credible.
Someone
> If Angel had been on the show every week, he would have been turned into
> Huggy Bear on "Starsky and Hutch". You know, the know-it-all slime ball
that
> knows what is being discussed in private meetings of top crime bosses,
just a
> crutch to disguise bad writing.
And lampooned hilariously on the short-lived brilliant "Police Squad!"
That shoe-shine guy knew everything from who was fencing what all
the way to the intricacies of neurosurgery!
nayl9
>successful without Angel Martin, even as Art Carney's Ed Norton
>character played such a crucial role in the success of The
>Honeymooners? I just checked and found that Angel appeared in EVERY ONE
>of the Rockford Files movies, which seems to speak for itself.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Rick
>
>
sense, if they did not create Angel, it would only have been because they
didn't create TRF at all. The question is, are you talking about Angel Martin,
the created character, Stuart Margolin, or both? I don't think there would
have been a better actor around to play the part than Margolin. And Margolin's
character certainly provided much humor, and a character contrast between
Rockford and Angel that always made Rockford look good. There were other good
characters/actors, but I guess I have to admit that Margolin/Angel was the most
memorable, hence his involvement with the TV movies of the 90s.
Gary Moheban
> There were other good characters/actors, but I guess I have to admit that
Margolin/Angel was the most
> memorable, hence his involvement with the TV movies of the 90s.
>
Not to mention the fact that Stu won two Emmys for Best Supporting Actor for
his portrayal of Angel Martin.
Did any other actors on TRF win any Emmys for the show? Did Jim Garner? I
know he was nominated but I am not sure if he ever won.
RNeill22
>know he was nominated but I am not sure if he ever won.
>
for their work on TRF. I'll research it and see if I can find out more.
(I think one reason Stuart Margolin was in all the TRF reunion movies was
because he directed some of them.)
RNeill22
>for their work on TRF. I'll research it and see if I can find out more.
>
And it looks like my memory was wrong. Apparently Rita Moreno won her Emmy for
The Muppet Show. Sorry!
bcnmason
'76-'77 period.
Brian
Gary Moheban <gmoh...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7R247.158698$R7.27...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
Adam H. Kerman
>Jim did win an Emmy for outstanding lead actor in a drama series during the
>'76-'77 period.
Do you know what episode was submitted, or were the rules different then?
Before anyone asks, he was nominated for the Oscar for "Murphy's Romance", one
of his weaker movies. But that was the Academy finally getting around to doing
something about it. Anyone want to suggest a movie role for which he should
have been seriously considered for the Oscar?
ivy_mike
> This set me to wondering if the Rockford Files would have been nearly as
> successful without Angel Martin,
Angel was a crucial ingredient in the show. And I agree with the
other guy who said that he was in just enough of the eps to max the
effect of his presence. Too much Angel and we wouldn't appreciate
him so much. I've said as much to my wife several times.
--
Regards, IM
MrSmoothDude
Are we talking about the wife, or about Angel? heh, heh.
David P. Smith
character in television history, topped only by Don Knotts' "Barney
Fife."
don
David P. Smith <smi...@airmail.net> wrote in message news:bd2f7b0.01072...@posting.google.com...
> IMHO Stuart Margolin's "Angel" was the second best supporting
> character in television history, topped only by Don Knotts' "Barney
> Fife."
>I think Angel and Barney Fife are both excellent characters and while one was
>meant to be a very shady individual (Angel) the other was a person who appealed to the public both on the show and off (Barney Fife).I find that if I
take them both as they are then I don't need to put one over the other.I do think
however that both characters had many levels to them and both were very deep.
Both characters wore their problems like they were a suit of clothes.
BRAD MERCER
Adam H. Kerman
>I think Angel and Barney Fife are both excellent characters and while one was
>meant to be a very shady individual (Angel) the other was a person who
>appealed to the public both on the show and off (Barney Fife).I find
>that if I
>take them both as they are then I don't need to put one over the
>other.I do think
>however that both characters had many levels to them and both were very deep.
>Both characters wore their problems like they were a suit of clothes.
Hm. I don't think I agree that Angel had many levels and was very deep. It just
took Jim a few scenes to get Angel to admit his specific motives.
don
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message news:AgN97.203207$mG4.94...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
>As a character on the surface,Angel Martin was nothing but a petty crook.
>However,I still contend that he was a deep character.I'm recalling an episode
when Beth and Jim had Angel comitted to a hospital.The doctors referred to him
as a being paranoid and many others terms that escape me at the moment.Stuart
Margolin played this character for all he was worth .This fellow was always
looking for a quick way to make a buck ...most of the time by using his friends
as marks as well.....and yet we still find him an appealing character to watch.
I always wanted to see him in every episode...and they used him in every one of the Rockford Files reunion films!Now if he'd been nothing but a petty crook who was only a perpetual thorn in Rockford's side ,which he was!Why was he such a funny and popular character?It was because there was greater depth than just the fact that he was a petty crook who could be whipped into shape by an angry Jim Rockford.
BRAD MERCER
map...@pop.fuse.net
Cincinnati. He said that Angel was only intended for the pilot, but that the
character played so well, they continued to use him as a recurring character. But,
Cannell also said Jim's fee was $250 a day, plus expenses. He got perturbed when
Pat Barry tried to correct him ($200 a day plus expenses). How could the CREATOR
not know Jim's fees? We all do.