Why do you think he’s lesser known than most of his peers?
Is it just because he doesn’t have a signature role like most of those other guys?
shareYou nailed it. He needed a "The Young Lions," "The Godfather," "Superman" or "Apocalypse Now." He finally had "Gladiator," but it was way too late.
shareOnly way too late cause he died making it right? Otherwise i'm sure he would've kept making movies for at least another 10 years.
shareHe lacked an early hit like "The Wild One" or "On the Waterfront" at the beginning of his career. Sure, he had "Curse of the Werewolf," "The Damned" and "The Shuttered Room," but they were relatively obscure by comparison.
When Brando made his resurgence in "The Godfather," et al. he was 47 during shooting whereas Reed was 61 during the filming of "Gladiator" when he of course passed away. It was too little too late.
Personally, I pretty much put him on par with Brando (almost), albeit from the other side of the Atlantic; he just lacked the same caliber 'hits.'
"He finally had "Gladiator..."
He was damn good in that movie too. I think he stole the movie from Crowe tbh and I was hoping he'd be recognized with at least an Oscar nom.
He’s probably the best thing about ‘Gladiator’ but his role is relatively small and I’m not sure it’s really seen by many as an Oliver Reed signature role. I did enjoy his performance, although the problem of Reed’s death during shooting wasn’t handled particularly well by the script.
shareOther than The Godfather and, arguably, Apocalypse Now, would you say that those are among Brando’s ‘signature roles’? I doubt many people think of The Young Lions or Superman first when they think of his career…
share"The Young Lions" was one of Brando's 50's hits. I cite it rather than, say, "A Streetcar Named Desire" or "The Wild One" because I think it's all-around superior and Marlon knocked it out of the ballpark.
The other three represent his 70's comeback with each being successful at the box office, not to mention iconic of the era and celebrated to this day. Sure, his role in "Superman" is secondary, but it's prominent in the opening act and not exactly insignificant in scope of the whole flick.
I liked ‘The Young Lions’ although I remember thinking Brando was a bit miscast and that Clift walked off with the movie. I actually always thought that it was quite a flop in it’s day but I stand corrected there!
When I think of fifties Brando it’s Streetcar and Waterfront that I think of first - not The Wild One, which I found pretty silly.
I need to give "The Wild One" a rewatch soon. It's a product of it's time and you have to acclimate. As it is, I remember it being kind of lame, tame, artificial and amusing with verbiage like "Daddy-O" and such, especially compared to nigh-shocking "The Wild Angels" released just 13 years later.
We have a difference of opinion on "The Young Lions." I found Brando's performance towering and his character's story arc fascinating. Noah's storyline (Clift) was decent, but lesser by comparison. It didn't help that Clift was 37 during shooting, which didn't match the youthfulness of his character. But I suppose it can be overlooked on the grounds of his naïve persona.
People rave about Brando's acting in "Streetcar," but there are better examples of his genius IMHO, such as "The Young Lions," "One-Eyed Jacks," "Mutiny on the Bounty," "The Missouri Breaks" and "Apocalypse Now," to name a handful. Marlon's portrayal of Kowalski is undermined by the needlessly antagonistic nature of the character. In other words, the performance might be excellent, but the character is so distasteful it's hard to appreciate it (for me, at least).
The characters on a whole are too one-dimensional and unbelievable: Blanche is the drama mama with airs of sophistication, Stanley is the animalistic brute, Stella is the blindly loyal wife and Mitch is the infatuated dumbaxx. Leigh's depiction of Blanche is so over-the-top and artificial it would've received a Razzie if the film were released a mere decade later. And I'm not blaming Vivien; she did the best she could with the melodramatic script.
Even worse, you have ridiculous elements, like the idea that Mitch was never able to see Blanche in the full light of day, so to speak, even though he took her on a date to the pier. The whole "dimming the lights" component is absurd and poorly executed, especially in light of Vivien's obvious beauty, whatever her age. In reality, Mitch would be worshipping at her feet for eternity, regardless of any skeletons of her past.
Then there's the preposterous explanation of the suicide of an off-screen character. They changed this from the play for the movie due to the moral codes and they failed to pull it off, to be nice.
Yet "Streetcar" has loads of fans who are able to look beyond these issues and enjoy it. More power to 'em.
I should add that I definitely appreciate the film's interesting themes: Blanche representing the dying Southern aristocracy, its airs of sophistication, its morality and delusions of superiority, whereas Stanley Kowalski representing the simple primal world of working class immigrants and the moral decay of modern society of the early 50s or, at least, its veneer of morality (which is the root of legalism).
But the way the conflict between Blanche and Stanley plays out shows that Tennessee Williams (or the screenwriter) didn't advocate either side, which leaves the audience uncertain on who to support. While Blanche's initial arrogance shouldn't be condoned and deserved rebuked, I squarely side with Blanche as Stanley's ongoing (and increasing) assaults become less and less justifiable.
So, for me, "Streetcar" is a love/hate affair.