I Hate Cary Grant And Grace Kelly
mcss...@dct.ac.uk
sure there must be loads of people out there who like them, but I'll be
damned if I can understand why. I must have watched upwards of twenty
movies featuring them, and, in my humble opinion, I haven't seen a good
performance yet.
What I particularly dislike about them is their non-physicality. Kelly
spends the whole of "High Noon" riding through the brush in Utah, but
she never gets one single hair out of place, and she wears Max Factor
for the entirety of the film (was lipstick around in the 1800s ?). Same
deal with Grant; after being chased by the cropduster plane in "North
By Northwest" he simply gets up, dusts himself down, and bingo, now he
looks like he just stepped out of a Saville Row fitting.
I think that both of these actors had extremely limited ranges - they
could play heroic roles in thrillers and mild comedies, and that's it.
What I look for in an actor is an overload of nervous energy; people
like James Woods, or Jennifer Jason Leigh, who throw themselves utterly
into character, and couldn't give a good goddamn about whether their
role is glamorous or heroic.
I suppose `method acting', for want of a better term, is much more
commonplace now than it was in the fifties, when Kelly and Grant made
their most famous films, but that's no excuse for being bland. But
I'm clearly in a minority here, since both of these actors were, and
still are, extremely popular, not to mention sex symbols. But I just
can't see the appeal. Someone enlighten me.
---
/ | \ BORN
/ | \ Harry Roat Jr,
| | | TO
\ /|\ / from Scarsdale
\/ | \/ KILL
---
gary cooper
Good thing for you they're both dead, eh?
--
gary cooper (not the dead one) coo...@digex.com
EMAIL ME ABOUT THE 1994 AirWarrior CONVENTION
666th Fighter Squadron; #1225 - "Moggy"
Internet Daemons !2!
Carol
technology and budgets have improved and expanded since then. It just
costs more to be sure that each speck of dirt is in the same place in
each shot; that a lock of hair was in such and such a place - like the
westerns and how the heroes rarely lost their hats, and almost never
reloaded their 6-shooters. Maybe the clean suit scene was shot before
the scenes where Cary got dirty - anyone really know? Some of the roles
for women in the older films was not to do much more than trip while
running from something and have the hero come running back to save them,
or stand in a corner and bite their nails during a fight scene. Am I
glad times changed! From a woman's stand point - I think Cary Grant was
one of the sexiest guys on the screne.
Janet W. Hardy
: commonplace now than it was in the fifties, when Kelly and Grant made
: their most famous films, but that's no excuse for being bland. But
: I'm clearly in a minority here, since both of these actors were, and
: still are, extremely popular, not to mention sex symbols. But I just
: can't see the appeal. Someone enlighten me.
Easy. You want to rumple them, to disturb them, to make them lose that
glacial surface calm. Kinda like a Mr. Spock fantasy, only '50s-style <g>.
John R. Dooley
>Can someone explain the appeal of Cary Grant and Grace Kelly to me.
I'm not sure they're so similar that each has the same appeal.
Grant's career is much longer and more varied. Kelly has few roles
but all the one's I've seen are gems (although I've only seen four
or five). They both exude elegance and sophisticated charm. Part of
the glamour that Hollywood, especially in the forties and fifties
strived to attain. Grant, in addition, is a top-notch comic actor.
One of the very best in all of film. When one thinks romantic comedy
-- Grant is one of the first actors to pop into my head (probably a
lot of other heads too).
>I'm sure there must be loads of people out there who like them, but I'll be
>damned if I can understand why.
Impeccable taste. 8-)
>I must have watched upwards of twenty
>movies featuring them, and, in my humble opinion, I haven't seen a good
>performance yet.
My god, what have you seen?
>What I particularly dislike about them is their non-physicality.
This statement seems very wrong to me. Kelly, in _Rear Window_, uses
her body and her manner to generate as much sensuality and passion on
screen as I have ever seen. Grant's physical comedy in _Bringin' Up
Baby_, _His Girl Friday_, is nearly flawlessly performed -- it's
well-timed and looks easy.
>Kelly spends the whole of "High Noon" riding through the brush in
>Utah, but she never gets one single hair out of place, and she
>wears Max Factor for the entirety of the film (was lipstick around
>in the 1800s ?).
This has nothing to do acting skills. Really, you're complaining
about directoral decisions. And, even more so, to film conventions
of the era. They wanted attractive stars more than they wanted
absolute realism -- especially in Westerns, which tend to be
somewhat mystical. And, yes, cosmetics pre-date the twentieth
century -- by a long shot.
>Same deal with Grant; after being chased by the cropduster plane in "North
>By Northwest" he simply gets up, dusts himself down, and bingo, now he
>looks like he just stepped out of a Saville Row fitting.
I think to an extent you miss the point of _North by Northwest_.
It's all a bit of a put-on. You're not supposed to take it too
seriously. You're certainly not supposed to look for absolute
realism.
>I think that both of these actors had extremely limited ranges - they
>could play heroic roles in thrillers and mild comedies, and that's it.
1. What they could play and what they do play are not the same thing.
Playing against an established type was probably less common during
their era than today, when all actors were a part of the studio system
-- a system usually, extremely resistant to offbeat casting.
2. I've watched a lot of movies and the more I watch the more convinced
I am that the two easiest types of roles for an actor to mess up are
comedies and romantic leads. To time comedy and to convincingly do
a love song are not minor skills.
>What I look for in an actor is an overload of nervous energy; people
>like James Woods, or Jennifer Jason Leigh, who throw themselves utterly
>into character, and couldn't give a good goddamn about whether their
>role is glamorous or heroic.
I've never seen James Wood do romance or comedy particular well --
although he does emote in drama. I haven't seen much of Leigh, but
what I have seen has been very impressive.
>I suppose `method acting', for want of a better term, is much more
>commonplace now than it was in the fifties, when Kelly and Grant made
>their most famous films, but that's no excuse for being bland.
To describe either as bland is incredible. You do have to let on to
what you've seen them do.
John D.
John R. Dooley
I <j...@ritz.cec.wustl.edu> wrote:
>
>2. I've watched a lot of movies and the more I watch the more convinced
>I am that the two easiest types of roles for an actor to mess up are
>comedies and romantic leads. To time comedy and to convincingly do
>a love song are not minor skills.
Of course, it should be "love scene".
John D.
Brian Bringardner
: Picky, picky - just take these classic, older films and remember that
: technology and budgets have improved and expanded since then.
BUT FILMS HAVE NOT!
Peter Reiher
>Can someone explain the appeal of Cary Grant and Grace Kelly to me. I'm
>sure there must be loads of people out there who like them, but I'll be
>damned if I can understand why.
>I think that both of these actors had extremely limited ranges - they
>could play heroic roles in thrillers and mild comedies, and that's it.
>What I look for in an actor is an overload of nervous energy;
That's a pretty limited view of good acting. Spencer Tracy never
played a role with nervous energy in his life, yet he's widely
regarded as a superior film actor. Jean Gabin, possibly the greatest
French film actor of all, similarly tended to avoid twitchy, highly-
emotive acting, yet he is incredibly effective in most of his roles.
Most of the best acting in Japanese films (not all, but most) is in
a lower key. An overload of nervous energy is appropriate for a
fairly restricted set of roles, but is hardly the be-all and end-all
of fine screen acting.
At any rate, if you want nervous energy from Cary Grant, watch
"His Girl Friday." He plays his role in fast forward, and extremely
well.
--
Peter Reiher
rei...@wells.cs.ucla.edu
cane...@gold.tc.umn.edu
>>Utah, but she never gets one single hair out of place, and she
>>wears Max Factor for the entirety of the film (was lipstick around
>>in the 1800s ?).
Whoa! I ask you, have you seen "High Noon" lately? Saw it last night
and I can guarantee you that Grace Kelly does not, repeat, does not
spend all of her time 'riding through the brush'. She's mostly sitting
in the motel where the Mexican lover of Cooper was staying or waiting
it out at the train depot. Which explains why her hair, etc..., aw
shucks, you do know what I mean, don't make me spell it out!!
JC
Adam Neil Villani
John R. Dooley <j...@ritz.cec.wustl.edu> wrote:
>>What I look for in an actor is an overload of nervous energy; people
>>like James Woods, or Jennifer Jason Leigh, who throw themselves utterly
>>into character, and couldn't give a good goddamn about whether their
>>role is glamorous or heroic.
>
>I've never seen James Wood do romance or comedy particular well --
>although he does emote in drama. I haven't seen much of Leigh, but
>what I have seen has been very impressive.
>
Have you seen "The Hard Way?" I didn't think this was a great movie, but
I thought it was a lot better than people thought it was. What
really saved the film was James Woods' performance as the straight man
in this comedy.
--
Adam Villani
ad...@cco.caltech.edu
Bacon Number: 4
David Lee
.>>Kelly spends the whole of "High Noon" riding through the brush in
.>>Utah, but she never gets one single hair out of place, and she
.>>wears Max Factor for the entirety of the film (was lipstick around
.>>in the 1800s ?).
>Whoa! I ask you, have you seen "High Noon" lately? Saw it last night
>and I can guarantee you that Grace Kelly does not, repeat, does not
>spend all of her time 'riding through the brush'. She's mostly sitting
>in the motel where the Mexican lover of Cooper was staying or waiting
>it out at the train depot. Which explains why her hair, etc..., aw
>shucks, you do know what I mean, don't make me spell it out!!
Whoa!!!! Wait a minute.. Remember at the start of the movie after the
wedding, Cooper and his bride head out on a buggy at high speed to run
away.. That's when Kelly's hair gets a little messed up.. but...GREAT
movie!!!
David #6
: [stuff deleted] Same
: deal with Grant; after being chased by the cropduster plane in "North
: By Northwest" he simply gets up, dusts himself down, and bingo, now he
: looks like he just stepped out of a Saville Row fitting.
: I think that both of these actors had extremely limited ranges - they
: could play heroic roles in thrillers and mild comedies, and that's it.
Well, if you have seen 20 films with these actors, no internet posting
will change your mind. However, I will point out that if you have mostly
seen the stuff that Grant did in the 50's -- I'm thinking of _Operation
Petticoat_, _Father Goose_, etc. -- you're missing out on the best part
of his career. Unfortunately, this is the stuff most likely to show up on
TV, because (a) it's in color, and (b) it's cheap.
If you haven't, see more of the films that made Grant a star in the 30's
and early 40's. My personal favorites are _His Girl Friday_ and _Arsenic
and Old Lace_, but most of them are good.
Oh, just noticed you're posting from the UK, don't know if the TV stuff
applies there.
--
David
dav...@netcom.com
mcss...@dct.ac.uk
j...@ritz.cec.wustl.edu (John R. Dooley) writes -
>> Can someone explain the appeal of Cary Grant and Grace Kelly to me ?
> They both exude elegance and sophisticated charm. Part of the glamour
> that Hollywood, especially in the forties/fifties, strived to attain.
That's true, but it's one of the reasons I don't like them. I don't
find elegant and sophisticated characters particularly appealing -
I come from a working-class town and a punk-rock generation, so how
I am supposed to identify with wealthy socialites, which is all they
seemed to play ? This is why I said I thought their range was very
limited. If they had played more common-man/woman type roles, like,
for instance, Henry Fonda or Shirley MacLaine, I think I would have
an opportunity to enjoy their films more. But every time I see them
they're sipping champagne at a cocktail party in uptown Manhattan.
I don't think Grant was capable of making a film like "The Grapes
Of Wrath", or "The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre", because audiences
wouldn't be able to accept him in a gritty, unglamorous role.
>> What I particularly dislike about them is their non-physicality.
> This statement seems very wrong to me. Kelly, in "Rear Window",
> uses her body and her manner to generate as much sensuality and
> passion on screen as I have ever seen.
That's a subjective element I think, and not much to do with acting,
or at least not true characterisation. Unlike you, I don't find Kelly
remotely attractive, but when I go see a Theresa Russell movie my
hormones jump through the roof. It's just personal taste. To my mind,
real acting is about generating a realistic and believable character,
not simply emoting sexuality. Kelly's films are completely overloaded
with body-worship shots of her. There's one in "Rear Window" which
completely pisses me off, when she first appears, and walks over to
kiss the sleeping James Stewart, and the kiss shot goes pointlessly
in slow motion. Oooh, let's all admire Kelly, the Great White American
Beauty. C'mon Alfred, give us a break !! What I meant with my comment
about the physicality is that she seems (to me at least) to be utterly
restricted in her roles to being someone's definition of sensual - you
would never see a Grace Kelly movie where she limps, or spits, or her
hair is unwashed, or she wipes snot from her nose, etc. Try imagining
if she'd been cast in "Aliens" - difficult, isn't it ? Yet Sigourney
Weaver can be aloof and glamorous ("The Year Of Living Dangerously"
for example), but can also walk around sweating, grunting, shooting
bug-eyed monsters with a flamethrower, and still maintain character
credibility. That to my mind is real physical acting. Also, in terms
of dramatic ability, I think Kelly was very limited. Someone like
Meryl Streep can play a Polish concentration camp immigrant, or an
ageing glamour-queen with effortless ease. She molds herself around
her character, changing her voice, appearance, body-language, diction,
everything, for each role. Kelly seems to be to be exactly the same
person in every movie she made.
> Grant's physical comedy in "Bringin' Up Baby" and "His Girl Friday",
> is nearly flawlessly performed - it's well-timed and looks easy.
Granted, if you'll excuse a bad pun, and both those films are funny,
but here, because of his dignified screen persona, I think he merely
has to react to provide the humour, as opposed to instigating it,
which is much more difficult. For want of a better term, he is `the
straight man'. "Bringing Up Baby" is a classic example. To my mind,
all the humour of that movie comes from Katharine Hepburn's crazed
performance. Grant merely sits back and tut-tuts at her mad antics.
It's Hepburn who has to risk being too broadly comedic (and therefore
possibly falling on her face - which of course she doesn't); Grant
only has to react to her. If somehow you could gender-reverse that
movie so that Grant had to be the nutcase and provide all the laughs,
I really think he couldn't begin to pull it off, whereas Hepburn
could sleepwalk through his role.
> Playing against an established type was probably less common during
> their era than today.
I'm afraid I don't accept studio imposition as any kind of reason
for adjusting my opinions. Cary Grant in particular was about the
most popular actor in Hollywood for fifteen years, so I'm sure he
would have had complete control over his career. For example, one
of the things that ruins "North By Northwest" for me is that the
actress who plays his mother, Jesse Royce Landis, is obviously not
old enough. In fact, she was born the same year as him, 1904. I'm
not someone who demands realism in movies, but equally I don't
tolerate petty concessions to vanity.
Peter Reiher
>In Message-ID: <33tovp$8...@ritz.cec.wustl.edu>
>j...@ritz.cec.wustl.edu (John R. Dooley) writes -
>
>>> Can someone explain the appeal of Cary Grant and Grace Kelly to me ?
>
>> They both exude elegance and sophisticated charm.
>That's true, but it's one of the reasons I don't like them.
. . .
>I don't think Grant was capable of making a film like "The Grapes
>Of Wrath", or "The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre", because audiences
>wouldn't be able to accept him in a gritty, unglamorous role.
Try "None But the Lonely Heart." Or "Gunga Din." Or "Only Angels
Have Wings."
>> Grant's physical comedy in "Bringin' Up Baby" and "His Girl Friday",
>> is nearly flawlessly performed - it's well-timed and looks easy.
>
>Granted, if you'll excuse a bad pun, and both those films are funny,
>but here, because of his dignified screen persona, I think he merely
>has to react to provide the humour, as opposed to instigating it,
>which is much more difficult. For want of a better term, he is `the
>straight man'.
Not true, actually. According to what many experts on comedy say,
being a good straight man is somewhat harder being the zany one.
Grant may have been one of the best straight men in film.
Anyway, Grant was most definitely not playing the straight man in
"His Girl Friday."
>> Playing against an established type was probably less common during
>> their era than today.
>
>I'm afraid I don't accept studio imposition as any kind of reason
>for adjusting my opinions. Cary Grant in particular was about the
>most popular actor in Hollywood for fifteen years, so I'm sure he
>would have had complete control over his career.
Actors, no matter how popular, did not have control of their
careers in the 30's and early 40's. They were under ironclad
contracts, for the most part, which forced them to appear in
films the studio chose for them. I believe that Grant actually
avoided being under contract, as did a few others, for much of
this period. But such popular performers as Clark Gable, Katherine
Hepburn, Bette Davis, and Joan Crawford were pretty much at the
studio's mercy. Now, the studio heads generally wanted to make
films that matched the stars' abilities and popularity, but that
didn't necessarily mesh with what the stars themselves wanted
to do.
During the 50's, most stars had much more control over their careers.
--
Peter Reiher
rei...@wells.cs.ucla.edu
John R. Dooley
In article <1994Sep1...@dct.ac.uk>, <mcss...@dct.ac.uk> wrote:
>In Message-ID: <33tovp$8...@ritz.cec.wustl.edu>
>j...@ritz.cec.wustl.edu (John R. Dooley) writes -
>
>>> Can someone explain the appeal of Cary Grant and Grace Kelly to me ?
>
>> They both exude elegance and sophisticated charm. Part of the glamour
>> that Hollywood, especially in the forties/fifties, strived to attain.
>
>That's true, but it's one of the reasons I don't like them. I don't
>find elegant and sophisticated characters particularly appealing -
>I come from a working-class town and a punk-rock generation, so how
>I am supposed to identify with wealthy socialites, which is all they
>seemed to play ?
1. You don't have to like or identify with any actor or actress. I
thought you were trying to learn their appeal to others. Still, a
talent doesn't have to be your cup of tea to still be recognizable
as a talent.
2. One can be working class and certainly be charming and still evoke
or at least appreciate an air of elegance. And who, may I ask,
could be more charming than Johnny Lydon?
3. Neither actor played only wealthy socialites. So far, we've discussed
two Grace Kelly films: _High Noon_, where she's a frontier Quaker, and
_Rear Window_, where she's the girlfriend of a photographer. In other
roles she did play a wealthy socialite. But, she played other characters
as well. The wife of a troubled husband was a part she did twice
(Bridges over Toko-Ri, The Country Girl).
In addition to being a wealthy socialite, Grants roles include
a bumbling intellectual ("Bringin' Up Baby"), an escaped -- albeit
framed -- con ("Talk of the Town"), a South American jungle pilot ("Only
Angels Have Wings"), a city editor ("His Girl Friday"), among others.
>This is why I said I thought their range was very limited.
Adventure, comedy, romance, drama -- that's a pretty limited
range for Grant? Kelly's parts are more limited --
very probably because she retired after about ten films to become
Princess of Monaco. Thus, her career really didn't get a chance to
grow. Also, in most of her films (though she may be lead actress),
her role is clearly supportive.
>But every time I see them
>they're sipping champagne at a cocktail party in uptown Manhattan.
What scene in High Noon has Kelly sipping champagne at a cocktail
party? What scene in Rear Window has Kelly sipping champagne at
a cocktail party? Where's the cocktail party in His Girl Friday,
Only Angels Have Wings? You give us this broad generalization and
claim it unifies their roles, but it really only characterizes
a few of either actor's parts. Then, from an incorrect generalization,
you claim that it proves that they have limited range.
>I don't think Grant was capable of making a film like "The Grapes
>Of Wrath", or "The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre", because audiences
>wouldn't be able to accept him in a gritty, unglamorous role.
But, how is that a comment on his acting? It's really a comment on
the audience's preconceived notions. And, if we want to use Henry
Fonda as a baseline, it's impossible to believe him capable of the
performance Grant gives in _His Girl Friday_ or _Arsenic and Old
Lace_ -- not because of what the audience will accept -- but because
Grant could play that sort of comedy better than almost any actor
in Hollywood in any era.
>>> What I particularly dislike about them is their non-physicality.
>
>> This statement seems very wrong to me. Kelly, in "Rear Window",
>> uses her body and her manner to generate as much sensuality and
>> passion on screen as I have ever seen.
>
>That's a subjective element I think, and not much to do with acting,
>or at least not true characterisation.
It has everything to do with acting. The chemistry that Kelly and
Stewart generate in the more passionate scenes is a direct result
of the work of two particularly skilled actors.
>Unlike you, I don't find Kelly remotely attractive
I don't find her extremely attractive -- and I didn't say I did --
I've seen many actresses who I would consider more beautiful. But,
I've never seen an actress give such a passionate and sensual
performance as Kelly does in Rear Window.
>To my mind,
>real acting is about generating a realistic and believable character,
>not simply emoting sexuality.
Emoting sexuality is not a realistic and believable characteristic?
I differ with you here.
>What I meant with my comment
>about the physicality is that she seems (to me at least) to be utterly
>restricted in her roles to being someone's definition of sensual - you
>would never see a Grace Kelly movie where she limps, or spits, or her
>hair is unwashed, or she wipes snot from her nose, etc.
But, how many actresses in that era did any of those things -- for
anything but comic effect. Really what you're doing -- as far as
I can tell -- is your judging Kelly not by her performances, but by
performances she never gave and was never cast for. Your judging
without consideration of the era when she worked as well. She did
not have a long career. You seem really intense in your dislike
for her. Which is odd, because it's hardly difficult to avoid seeing
her films. She didn't make that many.
>Try imagining
>if she'd been cast in "Aliens" - difficult, isn't it ?
You're comparing her roles to roles of a different era. It's ridiculous.
"Aliens" isn't a fifties film. No film from the fifties has a remotely
similar character. She was never given the opportunity. That's a far
cry from not being capable.
>Yet Sigourney Weaver can be aloof and glamorous ("The Year Of
>Living Dangerously" for example), but can also walk around sweating,
>grunting, shooting bug-eyed monsters with a flamethrower, and
>still maintain character credibility.
I think Weaver is an excellent actress -- one whose probably underutilized.
Still, I didn't know that Weaver was the standard by which we measure
fifties actresses. And, to be honest, I certainly didn't picture her as
glamourous in TYOLD -- although she was principled and intense.
>That to my mind is real physical acting.
Sweating? You ever been under the camera's lights? The challenge
is not to sweat. Grunting? You honestly think if asked to do so
Kelly would be incapable of grunting. It's not so challenging --
give it a try.
>Also, in terms of dramatic ability, I think Kelly was very limited.
>Someone like Meryl Streep can play a Polish concentration camp immigrant,
>or an ageing glamour-queen with effortless ease.
>She molds herself around
>her character, changing her voice, appearance, body-language, diction,
>everything, for each role. Kelly seems to be to be exactly the same
>person in every movie she made.
Not really. Although many of her parts are similar. It's obvious she
brings different qualities to each. There is such thing as subtlety and
shades of acting. I like Meryl Streep as a dramatic actress,
but I've never seen her do a convincing love scene and definitely did
not know her career was a standard against which to measure the career
of a fifties actress.
>> Grant's physical comedy in "Bringin' Up Baby" and "His Girl Friday",
>> is nearly flawlessly performed - it's well-timed and looks easy.
>
>Granted, if you'll excuse a bad pun, and both those films are funny,
>but here, because of his dignified screen persona, I think he merely
>has to react to provide the humour, as opposed to instigating it,
>which is much more difficult.
How in the world can you say he doesn't instigate the humor in
"His Girl Friday"? It's Grant rattling at the chaotic clip.
>For want of a better term, he is `the straight man'.
>"Bringing Up Baby" is a classic example. To my mind, all the humour
>of that movie comes from Katharine Hepburn's crazed performance.
>Grant merely sits back and tut-tuts at her mad antics.
Yeah, while he's running around her estate looking for the missing
bone, he's really only reacting to her. He's as odd as she is -- but
in a different way. They play off each other. You need both to have
a successful comedy. The interaction and the timing require great
skill from both actors.
>It's Hepburn who has to risk being too broadly comedic (and therefore
>possibly falling on her face - which of course she doesn't); Grant
>only has to react to her.
They react to each other. And, Grant is playing an eccentric,
absent-minded professor and runs an equal risk of coming off
as too broadly comic. Not to mention other parts where he clearly
has the more broadly comc part (Philadelphia Story, Arsenic and
Old Lace, My Favorite Wife, and Talk of the Town spring to mind).
>If somehow you could gender-reverse that
>movie so that Grant had to be the nutcase and provide all the laughs,
>I really think he couldn't begin to pull it off, whereas Hepburn
>could sleepwalk through his role.
And, our notions of gender will really not allow us to view it in a
comic way. It's hard to conceive of the parts being switched. On
the other hand -- if you're asking can Grant play an off-kilter
eccentric -- he can and he has. Try Talk of the Town.
>> Playing against an established type was probably less common during
>> their era than today.
>
>I'm afraid I don't accept studio imposition as any kind of reason
>for adjusting my opinions.
Then you choose to ignore the constraints of the era when they worked
and try to judge them based on that ignorance.
>Cary Grant in particular was about the
>most popular actor in Hollywood for fifteen years, so I'm sure he
>would have had complete control over his career.
Probably not. Final control was in the hands of studio bosses
who had the purse strings. Directors had more control and actors
less than the other two. For most of the late forties -- the most
popular star was Betty Grable. Did that status really give her
much clout?
>For example, one
>of the things that ruins "North By Northwest" for me is that the
>actress who plays his mother, Jesse Royce Landis, is obviously not
>old enough. In fact, she was born the same year as him, 1904. I'm
>not someone who demands realism in movies, but equally I don't
>tolerate petty concessions to vanity.
You think that Grant cast the part of his mother? I think you're
almost certainly wrong there. What makes you think Hitchcock would
relinquish that sort of power to one of his actors? Especially,
given his widely quoted remark that actors should be treated
like cattle. You want to judge the actor, not by the skill of
the actor, but rather by the way the director frames his/her
performance. I think that's an unfair way to judge.
John D.
Fred Hunter
: two Grace Kelly films: _High Noon_, where she's a frontier Quaker, and
: _Rear Window_, where she's the girlfriend of a photographer. In other
: roles she did play a wealthy socialite. But, she played other characters
I must point out (even though I disagree entirely with the
anti-Grant-Kelly posts) that Kelly was, indeed, a wealthy socialite in
Rear Window, not just "the girlfriend of a photographer" (good grief, the
whole point of the "problem" Stewart was having with their relationship
was that they weren't of the same social class). She was a fashion
expert (in her first scene she's wearing a dress that's on loan from an
exclusive shop she works with), who can afford to have dinner catered in
from 21.
But I'm afraid I'm kind of missing the point of this discussion. So the
original poster can't "identify" with the characters that Grant and Kelly
play. I mean, I would think that would just indicate that he's a little
young. I couldn't identify with the characters in "My Beautiful
Laundrette", but that didn't stop the performances from being good.
David #6
: I come from a working-class town and a punk-rock generation, so how
: I am supposed to identify with wealthy socialites, which is all they
You really should see some Preston Sturges films, particularly
_Sullivan's Travels_ and _The Miracle of Morgan's Creek_
: but here, because of his dignified screen persona, I think he merely
: has to react to provide the humour, as opposed to instigating it,
: which is much more difficult. For want of a better term, he is `the
: straight man'. "Bringing Up Baby" is a classic example. To my mind,
: all the humour of that movie comes from Katharine Hepburn's crazed
: performance. Grant merely sits back and tut-tuts at her mad antics.
To begin with, I don't agree with your analysis of Grant's performance in
_Bringing Up Baby_ as being a "straight man". But be that as it may,
being a gifted straight man is very difficult to pull off effectively.
Think of two very different actors, George Burns and Spencer Tracy. Burns
and Allen shared an almost flawless comic timing that was a joy to
behold. No one (except Burns, who says it all the time) would say that
Gracie Allen provides all of the humor in their routines.
Spencer Tracy played quiet, strong individuals against Katharine
Hepburn's somewhat more exuberant personality in a whole string of films,
and he was regarded by most of his contemporaries as one of the best in
the business. I recently saw a special on PBS narrated by Hepburn in which
she showed a clip from _Adam's Rib_ in which she did almost all of the
talking so that she could point out how natural _Tracy's_ acting was in
the scene.
--
David
dav...@netcom.com
Jeff Meyer
>At any rate, if you want nervous energy from Cary Grant, watch
>"His Girl Friday." He plays his role in fast forward, and extremely
>well.
Or ARSENIC AND OLD LACE. As someone once said, Grant manages about two
double-takes to the minute in this film.
"Insanity runs in my family... it practically
gallops!"
----
Jeff Meyer
INTERNET: mori...@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP: {uunet, uw-beaver, sun, microsoft}!fluke!moriarty
CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind...
**>> Keep circulating the tapes <<**
David Edwards
>sure there must be loads of people out there who like them, but I'll be
>damned if I can understand why. I must have watched upwards of twenty
>movies featuring them, and, in my humble opinion, I haven't seen a good
>performance yet.
>
>still are, extremely popular, not to mention sex symbols. But I just
>can't see the appeal. Someone enlighten me.
'Gotta agree with you here. Kelly to me is i highly unmemorable
actress. Grant on the other hand has an unmistakable presence. Apart
from his handsome appearance, I think it is his mostly his voice,
which I find irritating. He always speaks too quickly in a chopped
fashion. This would be Ok if there was some variation to it.
On the other hand there are precious few actors who do have significant
emotion registers. I mean Kevin Costner is a perfect example. I haven't
seen Wyatt Earpe, but from the trailers I have seen, he plays the same
old wooden guy, who never varies his flat nasal tone. The thing is I can't
accept that this is pure accident: directors must realize he is a dud too.
In JFK this was OK since he played a lawyer: people can expect lawyers
to be rather boring. But not Robin Hood for god's sake, or Wyatt Earpe!
So what's the explanation, beyond just plain poor casting?
I read once that Hitchcock liked Jimmy Stewart because he was such an
ordinary guy: that audiences could empathize with him more. Maybe that's
the secret why such boring people get to be stars. Stewart though was to
me an extraordinary ordinary guy. In the case of Grant maybe Hitchcock
chose him because he reminded him of himself: an Englishman (Welsh really)
in America, and a bit of a fuck up. Maybe people like to see actors who
are more neurotic than themselves. 'Could explain a lot.
David Edwards
Susan C. Mitchell
: In <1994Aug30.1...@cs.ucla.edu> rei...@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher) writes:
: >At any rate, if you want nervous energy from Cary Grant, watch
: >"His Girl Friday." He plays his role in fast forward, and extremely
: >well.
: Or ARSENIC AND OLD LACE. As someone once said, Grant manages about two
: double-takes to the minute in this film.
I'll have to check my copy of this movie, but I think that when he looks
in the window seat, he manages the only known quadruple-take in the
history of motion pictures.
: "Insanity runs in my family... it practically
: gallops!"
"Another malaria victim, Mr. President."
Think globally, act locally.
Susan
--
===========================================================================
"It is not the writer's task to answer questions but to question
answers. To be impertinent, insolent, and, if necessary, subversive."
-- Edward Abbey