MovieChat Forums > A Foreign Affair (1948) Discussion > Lund, a leading man?

Lund, a leading man?

posted 12 years ago by fubared1
10 replies | jump to latest

One of Wilder's favorites, I gather, but the guy was totally unattractive with a seriously grating voice. Perhaps that's why Wilder liked him. Personally, I found his character much to abrasive and could not understand Arthur or Dietrich actually attracted to him. But then Wilder usually worked with unattractive leading men like Fred MacMurray and Jack Lemmon. Anyway I gather the guy thought the same thing about himself, but then I can't say much for his acting either, though I haven't seen him in much.

Life sucks, then you're reincarnated

[–] FranLovesBetteD 10 years ago

I'm not familiar with his work, except for this movie, but I found him to be very handsome indeed (reminds me a lot of Preston Foster, a huge favorite of mine), as well as Fred MacMurray. I agree about Lemmon, though.

Animal crackers in my soup
Monkeys and rabbits loop the loop

[–] Sandoz 10 years ago

I agree with you, OP--the one major issue I have with this film is this John Lund guy as the leading man. If it wasn't for him, I really believe this film would be mentioned in the same breath as many others of Billy Wilder's classic comedies. There's something about the guy that doesn't endear an audience to him; the first scene with him and Dietrich where he's taunting her and semi-tormenting her in her bombed-out apartment come across as downright threatening, as if he thought he was acting in a film noir instead of a comedy. And pencil-thin mustaches on guys in films don't exactly cry out "romantic lead", except maybe on Errol Flynn only.

"Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough."

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

People sometimes expect every leading man to be drop dead gorgeous. I suppose that's what we'd prefer to see; I would, but often the character calls for a specific type or the director doesn't think the audience will buy it.

I don't think it would work if Pringle was a young stud who has his pick of the litter. He is after all hooked up with a broken down, picked over, lounge singer. He also has to romance a super conservative congresswoman. If a super attractive guy suddenly went for her, she might be more suspicious of his motives than she is in the movie.

I do agree about the other actors you mentioned. I never could understand the whole Jack Lemmon appeal. Obviously Wilder loved working with him but I always thought he played the exact same, high-strung, jumpy, neurotic character in every movie I've ever seen him in. He's not exactly an ugly guy; he's just plain; kind of neutral. Then again, he does play a lot of 'every man' roles so his ho hum looks fit.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] cyninbend-149-610489 8 years ago

I thought he was awful. Never noticed his voice, but he was devoid of chemistry. It's not that he was too old, it's just that there is no sense of fun or darkness... He needed to have some charm--two women are competing for his attentions. Both Fred MacMurray and Jack Lemmon were much more attractive than he was. I was not expecting drop dead gorgeous, but he looked more like Himmler than Gable...

I thought this was supposed to have a bit of comedy--Jean Arthur, after all--but Lund lacked anything scandalous or roguish to his character. And if it was intended to be a darker statement on post-war Berlin, he failed at that as well. I kept waiting for him to grow on me, but that didn't happen either.

[–] Trax-3 7 years ago

People sometimes expect every leading man to be drop dead gorgeous.

A leading man doesn't have to be gorgeous but he should have some charisma and presence. This guy is rather wooden and unmemorable.

[–] jawebster2000 8 years ago

I've always liked John Lund. To me he was the poor man's Clark Gable!

[–] atlasmb 8 years ago

I am not very familiar with Lund. But my take is--as you said--he's a poor man's Clark Gable. Dark looks, rough voice.

[–] melnar1 8 years ago

… the guy was totally unattractive with a seriously grating voice.
Personally, I found his character much to abrasive

Well, perhaps not totally unattractive, but certainly no charisma there.

I got the same impressions seeing him in High Society (1956), which turned me right off.

In my opinion, he was not "leading man" material.

[–] treasurechestoctober 8 years ago

You couldn't be more wrong. I find him agonizingly sexy. He had a perfect laid back charm in this movie which was a good contrast to Jean Arthur's more uptight character. And the roguishness of his personality is shown through in the relationship with Dietrich's character. This movie has actually made me a fan of Lund, as I've explored his other work, he had quite a range, from comedy, to serious dramas, and he did a good job in each part he played.

I think he's sadly quite underrated, and it could be (based on quoted I've read) he didn't feel he was leading man material, so he may have shied away from doing more. Anyway, Lund is what made this movie great, in my opinion.

[–] liscarkat (16476) 3 years ago

He wasn't the most charismatic actor, but he was far better looking than the average guy in real life, and a decent actor.