MovieChat Forums > War and Peace (1956) Discussion > Henry Fonda Miscast

Henry Fonda Miscast

posted 14 years ago by jokoool
17 replies | jump to latest

I had to downgrade this film based solely on the miscasting of Fonda as Pierre. It was a good film, but listening to Fonda with his western accent was almost torture. At least he could have tried to speak with a European accent the way European actors try to Speak with an American one. I was expecting him to draw his six shooter during the duel. I hope he didn't star in any other European period films during his great career. This film showed me how limited he was as an actor.

[–] BoomerMovieFan 14 years ago

That's exactly what I was thinking, he's dreadfully miscast.

But the film is still a favorite of mine.

[–] dalbrech 13 years ago

I love Henry Fonda, but he is miscast here.
Frankly, if they needed an American Star for Box Office appeal, I can see Monty Clift doing a much better job as Pierre.

I'll Teach You To Laugh At Something's That's Funny
Homer Simpson

[–] topix-761-664161 13 years ago

I'm watching it now, and I was thinking the same thing. Everyone else sounded aristocratic, but Fonda sounded like a hick from the midwest.

I still like him as an actor, but sometimes they cast actors, just because they're popular, rather than characters that would fit better.

If you're too old to cut the mustard, you can always lick the jar.

[–] GaelicLass 13 years ago

It's called box office draw. They bring viewers in. Clooney is one of this day.

[–] trpdean 13 years ago

My understanding is that it was Fonda's enthusiasm to adapt such an epic to film - his huge earnest desire to see this get made - that caused the studio to agree to finance such a hugely expensive film.

Physically of course he's all wrong (Bezhukhov in the novel is in his early 20s, huge (I imagine a 6'5" fellow weighting upwards of 250 pounds), of immense strength. Obviously this isn't Fonda. The problem is that Bezhukov's a lead role - and no one matching such physical criteria were lead actors in movies at all. The closest physically were Lee J. Cobb (who was probably too old looking to play in his early 20s) and Rod Steiger whom I think was a good enough actor to carry it off - but since he'd always played characters who were unlikable (Jud in Oklahoma, Marlon Brando's older brother who bet against him when he was a fighter in On the Waterfront), I'm not sure that the audience would have had the sympathy with Bezukhov they needed. Still, if I were free to cast anyone, I'd have chosen Steiger - he was a great actor. (Amusing coincidence that he was later excellent as Napoleon in The Battle of Waterloo directed by the Russian Bondarchuk).

So perhaps: no Fonda- no movie.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DarthBill 12 years ago

I heard Audrey Hepburn actually recommended her "Roman Holiday" co-star Gregory Peck, who was a pretty big guy himself, for the part of Pierre, but he either wasn't available or wasn't interested. Of course, he would have been about 40 then so again there's that "looks older than the character's description in the novel."

[–] CamiKzee 12 years ago

"European accent"...?

[–] jacowium 9 years ago

That refers to the people who live in the country Europe, and who speak Europe, of course.

Please click on 'reply' at the post you're responding to. Thanks.

[–] carolina_1992 7 years ago

I really hope you're joking.

[–] jacowium 7 years ago

Yes, I'm clearly making a ridiculous joke. The joke - lame as it is - is only made because such uninformed people do roam amongst us.

Please click on 'reply' at the post you're responding to. Thanks.

[–] kitsilanoca-1 11 years ago

I saw the BBC version from the early 70s starring Anthony Hopkins, then read the book. I must say that the idea of Henry Fonda in the role of Pierre makes me shy away from watching this film. He was getting a bit long in the tooth by 1956 and as others have pointed out, his accent would not fit in at all! Preferably a European actor should have been cast in the role and Audrey could have been the audience draw; she was a star by the time it came out after Roman Holiday.

[–] political-terror 9 years ago

I agree Henry Fonda is miscast, especially with his American accent, but he is not alone, none of the actors in this film acquit themselves well, in fact the only great thing about this movie is Jack Cardiff's incredible cinematography which shows off the beautiful set design and costumes, otherwise this is a terrible adaptation of the novel.

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

I agree he is miscast and his accent really doesn't work in the context of other characters, but I did think the make-up artists did a pretty good job of making him look a lot younger than his 50 years at the time.🐭

[–] clunybrown2011 8 years ago

He did look youthful... about 36. Must be good genes and the makeup artists.

[–] rudeboymurray (3241) 4 years ago

I haven’t seen this version yet. I’m currently reading the novel - it is taking me quite some time - and planning on watching this and, if I can find it, the 1968 Soviet version afterwards.

Pierre in the book is described as ‘large-bodied and ungainly’ which certainly doesn’t sound like Fonda to me. I have seen the recent TV serial where Paul Dano portrays Pierre and Dano, although a little too slim, was very good.

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

It wasn't just his age and American accent that made him all wrong for this film, it was his personality. Pierre is supposed to be young, thoughtful, socially awkward, and philosophical, and Fonda's chilly personality and inexpressive face totally fail to put the character's inner life across on film. And the novel is all about the character's inner life.

I've never been a fan of Fonda, he's cold and stiff in most of his roles but occasionally it works, but here... oy. The film only works when he's not in the scene.