What is it I don't get about Montgomery Clift?

Sorry about that -- I'm a hetero GUY. Thanks for a pro-Clift posting that was neither defensive nor insulting. Maybe I should have my glasses checked.

Also, "Freud" and "Wild River."

No, Monty's overated.

Two great performances-"Eternity" and "Nuremberg". The rest, nothing special.



"This is our hill, and these are our beans!" Lt. Frank Drebin

There was plenty of realism and understated intensity in acting long before Clift or Brando came along. The idea that it was otherwise is a myth, and anyone who has seen a lot of pre-Clift and pre-Brando movies knows it.

I have to admit, I agree with the "overrated" assessment. Although his performance in "A Place In the Sun" was his best overall, even for his time he isn't anything to write home about. Believe me, with all the accolades he's received over the years. I would love nothing more than to be a big fan. Maybe with more training, and time, but he just didn't live up to the standards of other actors of his generation - such as Dean, Brando, or Elizabeth Taylor.

The passage of time and styles does have a way of evening things out. Clift, like Brando and James Dean, were ground breakers, though John Garfield got there first in a less showy way. I just watched Rebel Without a Cause and now James Dean seems indulgent and Natalie Wood, strictly a product of the Hollywood studio system, seems more natural! Go figure.

I don't think Monty has been overpraised, but I do think he might be an acquired taste. My favorite film of his is A Place in the Sun. His performance is both complex and natural, just as the character demanded. Later--yes, after his life-altering accident--he often struck me as too neurotic and even degenerate in his looks. He did, however, always complement his most beautiful costars; Taylor, Monroe and Jennifer Jones.

I just finished watching it as well, and all I noticed different during the second half was how they seemed to always shoot him from one side, probably because of the aforementioned accident. But they don't always shoot each scene of a movie in sequence to how the story goes so it might be hard to distinguish which were pre-accident and post-accident shots.

As for how good he was, I agree about the little known movie "The Search" being one of his best. And someone else in this thread mentioned carring a movie by being the big "star" of it versus being in an ensemble cast. I've noticed many actors that are better in one than the other, not to say they are any better of an actor particularly, just the casting itself seems to make all the difference sometimes.

Just an observation: A lot of people want to make a big deal about someones sexual orientation and how it relates to their acting. Since there are probably more homosexual people playing heterosexual parts than the other way around, they might actually have to be better actors to be able to pull it off convincingly!! Why not make that another catagory for the Oscars if it seems so important to some people??



"Go back to your oar, Forty One."

<< The accident left Monty with facial damage to the left side of his face and therefore the stoic expression. You can notice a more normal Monty in the first half of the film. >>

Patricia Bosworth's well written biography points out that it's not just the accident that made him seem flat in this movie. The years of drug and alcohol abuse had caught up with him and removed the magical, magnetic glow he'd first had...not to mention the fact that he was simply getting older. He was consistantly drunk filming this movie, and the light has gone out of his eyes.

I also love Clift in "The Search". What I don't understand is why people say he was Disfigured? Yes, he had a bad accident and extensive plastic surgery, but he was still a handsome man after that. He didn't look like someone horrifically disfigured. I'm watching Raintree County at this very moment and he still looks handsome to me.

I'm afraid I don't get all the Monty-bashing. I think he is one of the greatest actors, perhaps top-10 all time.

He only made a handful of films to begin with, but he had enough really, really, really good performances to be considered great. Raintree County was a flat performance, yes...but considering the circumstances (miscasting, that horrible accident) I can give him a pass since it wasn't an unmitigated disaster.

His best performances demonstrate a deep understanding of the complexity of morality, how a man can be both good and bad, selfish and sympathetic at the same time. I can't think of another actor so adept at conveying the intensity Monty did while at the same time doing almost nothing -- except maybe Bette Davis in the few roles where the director forced her to be still and you could just see her burning to explode. That undercurrent is in most of Clift's really good performances, but also with a heartbreaking awareness and fragility.

Everyone here seems to at least agree that he was awesome in A Place in the Sun and Judgment at Nuremburg and I agree those are his best performances. But he was also terribly good in The Heiress, I Confess, From Here to Eternity, Red River and especially his two most underrated roles Freud and The Search, both of which would restore his reputation if they were more widely seen.

How many excellent performances do you have to give to be considered worthy? He had some duds, but I don't think he ever gave a performance so bad it's embarrassing, which is more than can be said for a lot of great actors (Al Pacino anyone?).