Kennedy way too old


I think Arthur Kennedy is way too old to be playing this part...He's older than Robert Mitchum and kind of has a potbelly. Wonder why they didn't cast it more realistically.

reply

I don't agree...

reply

You don't? He was 38 and looked older. That is way old to be starting out on the rodeo circuit. It isn't as though he married young and had kids to support, so why the late start?

He was 4 years Older than Robert Mitchum. It was bad casting and took away from the realism of the film.

Probably they didn't want a much younger man, early 20's, because then Susan Hayward couldn't have played the wife. They could have gotten an actor a few years younger who had a more youthful appearance and manner.

reply

I thought he was perfectly cast.

reply

I agree, though he goes trough it pretty well.

reply

[deleted]

Kennedy did look his age and that was probably why Nicholas Ray refrained from showing him in close-ups most of the time. I'd say his biggest fault were his confused facial expressions that never seemed to quite fit the emotion he was supposed to be portraying in his few close-ups. That was probably an even bigger reason not to show his face up close a lot. But as to the OP's remark about him having a potbelly, just look at Mitchum and the gut he's sucking in throughout the film... and any film from the late 40's onward. But whereas Mitch had an overall good strong figure, Kennedy seemed very scrawny and unfit. His belly was definitely inferior to Bob's and it's not what made him a bad choice for the role.

I'm here, Mr. Man, I can not tell no lie and I'll be right here 'till the day I die

reply

Hey folks,

Just looking at the numbers, all three of the main actors were too old for the characters they played. Hayward and Mitchum were about 35, and Kennedy was about 38 at the time. Now matter how you spin it, real rodeo riders are more like teenagers and early 20s. My neighbor rodeoed when she was almost 40, but she competed in barrel racing and pole bending, and those events are a lot less destructive to the body than riding broncs and bulls.

Having said all that, I should point out that I really enjoyed the film in spite of their being older than maybe they should have been. I guess it's all about suspending my disbelief. I have long enjoyed all three of these actors, so I did not mind ignoring the age thing. Besides, if one thought for a moment about all the films James Stewart did, one would have to consider all the times he was cast opposite a gal young enough to be his daughter.

Yep, these guys may have been too old for realistic rodeo folks, but it was a good film, and I enjoyed it.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile



reply

I agree wholeheartedly. Sure, they were too old on paper to be playing young rodeo riders, but we (the audience) love these folks for who they are, and are willing to give them a pass. Besides, it's not like they were so old they needed canes or walkers!

reply

Agreed, 38 is a lousy year to start the rodeo.

reply