Gable's health
Anyone notice how he trembled in many of the shots?
shareIf you are talking about after his character hit his head, then I think that's good acting.
It's fun to take a trip. Put acid in your veins.
MovieChat Forums > Run Silent, Run Deep (1958) Discussion > Gable's health
Thought about that, but it looks like genuine trembling. But if it is only
in the post-injury scenes, then hats off to Gable!
Good call lordhack, I noticed that trembling throughout the movie - reminded me a little bit of Kathryn Hepburn later on. Gable didn't have too much longer to live after that movie so not that surprising I guess and I think it was not intentional or acting. He did look fairly robust for most of the film though I thought. It was kind of somewhat unfair to have him in so many shots next to Lancaster who was always so bulldog-ish and appeared like he could crack walnuts between his butt cheeks. (-:
share Thanks. Watched it again for my own mental health, and indeed Gable has
the shakes throughout, although well masked. You are right, he had only a
few years left. Did he not die partly to a weight-loss try during his last
film? Anyway, the man had fantastic presence.
Funny about Lancaster. His hatchet face looks like it could chop those walnuts in half, too!
I have no idea if a weight-loss try partly contributed to Gable's death.
shareIn the International Film Encyclopedia by Ephraim Katz it describes Gable's post war film career thus -
'He had gained weight, his age was beginning to show, his nerves seemed to be shattered and his popularity was fading away. He was drinking heavily and was frequently shaking in front of the cameras'
It was not good acting on Gable's part, but a combination of shattered nerves and the effects of heavy drinking.
Sad but true. Like others of his generation, he continued to play roles for which he was no longer suited, too caught up in being "The King" to ease gracefully into maturity. Sooner or later, as even Paul Newman knew, you have to concede the victory to age. Nonetheless, it all worked to get him good reviews again.
I hate the vanity and ego of many "leading men," who conspire with equally vain old producers and hold back younger men. They play roles 20 years too young for them with women younger than their own children. It's not bankability - their pictures often fail. Still, Gable was not as bad as Errol Flynn or Gary Cooper, and I'm glad he was spared humiliation, at least in "Run Silent, Run Deep." Can we agree that his last role in "The Misfits" was good acting?
'The Misfits', Gable's role in it, certainly it was good acting on his behalf but realistic, definitely no. He looked a wreck and I find it highly unlikely that a very attractive woman like Roslyn Tabor would have show any interest in him at all.
I've seen most of Gable's post war movies and there's very few that I would want to see again (Run Silent, Run Deep being an exception). Most of them are terrible to watch and in virtually all he plays parts that he is clearly too old for.
You are 100 per cent right about the others too, looking at Gary Cooper in 'Love in the Afternoon' it is so embarassing to watch him on the screen, Spencer Tracy played Robert Wagner's brother in 'The Mountain' yet he looks more like his grandfather. Ray Milland played leading me throughout the fifties, even played on in 1973 when he was 68!!!!! Bob Hope played a WW2 army sergeant in 1968 when he was 65, Bing Crosby, Bogart, Wayne all looked too old in the 1950's, and as for Errol Flynn the less said the better.
I agree with you that "The Misfits" was not realistic. I was a kid back then and was annoyed with all the old men playing roles they were too old for. My late father, a good man who was born in 1924 and a WWII veteran defended it because he grew up watching those actors, and middle age vanity made him and other men of his "greatest" generation oppose giving "kids" leading roles. Of course, they considered any man under 40 a kid and they had no objection to women in their early 20s being cast in the romantic leads. He thought I would change my mind as I grew older, but I didn't.
I don't mind Harrison Ford or even Sean Connery being given romantic leads. However, I do object when they're given female leads like Anne Heche and Catherine Zeta Jones, women far too young for them. As I have said before, I know many of these actors are married to or live with much younger women, but that is totally different from the film situations. Unlike their characters, they are wealthy, famous, and powerful film stars, and there are always younger women who want in on that. I doubt they would have gotten those women if they were plumbers or insurance salesmen.
"I told myself when I was young that when I was old, I wouldn't fool myself that the young women I would be dating would want me for anything more than the money and fame. But now that I am old, I've pretty much done that." - Jack Nicholson. It's not an exact quote, but it's as close as I can remember. At least he's honest about it.
However, I do disagree with you about John Wayne. He played men his age and his romances were mostly with women close to his own age like Maureen O'Hara and Vera Miles. Often he had no love interest in his films. References were often made to him being an old man. What bothered me about the others was that they took young men roles. Gable had romances with young Doris Day, Sophia Loren, Lana Turner, and Marilyn Monroe in his later roles. That was totally absurd.
People have to remember that for some of these "older" actors like Harrison Ford- who was a big star for at least 20 years- they didn't become stars until a later age. Ford was in his mid 30s in the 1977 Star Wars. Ford seemed believable as an action hero until the end of the Jack Ryan movies run. Seems to me though that stars like Ford, Wayne, Eastwood, Connery for examples were cast/made films for so long not so much as a vanity thing but because they were big box office. Their films for a very long time made lots of money and were very popular. Sure many other stars went on too long being the leading man instead of segueing into character or secondary roles. I agree that the film practice of pairing young gals with men old enough to be their grandfathers was generally unrealistic and looked silly- though this is not some rare societal occurrence either. But for the characters they play it usually is.
When it isn't stretching believability too much I think I prefer seeing a bit older, more experienced/worldly-looking actors in lead roles than some youngish heartthrob of the moment. It's probably based more on what I've seen while growing up from the 1950s on than anything else I'll admit.
I do not consider actors in the 32-45 range the "youngish heartthrob of the moment." I'm not advocating giving big parts to 24 -year-olds unless it's appropriate to the roles. The reason it took Ford, Hurt, Kline, Selleck and the others so long to make it was because the old men of the previous generation held on way past their prime. And old men with young women is rare in American contemporary society - when the man isn't rich. Harrison Ford with Michelle Pfeiffer made sense. Teaming him with Anne Heche was stupid, and cost the film ticket sales. Even though he's now in his 50s, I still like seeing Bruce Willis because he acts his age and they team him romantically with women in their late 30s and early 40s, not their 20s. Surely you don't consider it fair that good roles for women who are "a bit older" are hard to come by.
I'm a man of 58 and I don't consider myself "a bit older." I'm a lot older. In the military and police/federal law enforcement work, people my age are rarely in the field. Yet, in the movies they were common for too many years.
Sure John Wayne was guaranteed box office, but the others were not. Many times those "bankable" old stars failed, but they kept getting work. At least Spencer Tracy and Wayne played roles appropriate for their ages, and were paired with women who were usually not ridiculously younger. The others often made fools of themselves with women in their 20s. Bogart was 54 when he did "Sabrina" with Audrey Hepburn, then 25, in 1954. Oh come now!
Hollywood is famous for absurd miscasting. Did you know that Paramount actually tried to get Robert Redford for the role of Michael Corleone because he was "big box office?" Even Redford thought it was stupid and passed. So they reluctantly gave the role to that young "nobody," Al Pacino. This was reported by Mario Puzo himself.
I admit that you have made many good points, and you are fair and reasonable in your analysis. But I saw actors of our generation held back far too long because of the vanity of some old actors and the greed of other old men, the producers. People went to see the old popular male stars because there was no one else. They were more than eager to see talented young ones. If women can start getting good roles in their twenties, so should men. If men can keep getting good roles into their 50s and early 60s, so should women. Also, don't forget that the average movie-goer is much younger now. We baby boomers must learn to make way for the young, as our parents' generation did (with great reluctance).
I'd like to add that it rarely happens with women, most of the 30's leading ladies careers (Norma Shearer, Ann Sheridan, Greta Garbo, Jean Arthur, Janet Gaynor, Mary Astor, Joan Bennett, Joan Blondell, Madeline Carroll, Fay Wray, Claudette Colbert, Joan Fontaine, Paulette Goddard, Dorothy Lamour, Lorreta Young etc) were over by the time they hit the age of 40!!!!
However it has happened on a few occasions and the result is pretty awful - Lana Turner 45 in 'Madame X', Marlene Dietrich 50 in 'Rancho Notorious', 56 in 'Witness for the Prosecution', Joan Crawford 46 in 'Sudden Impact' and 48 in 'Johnny Guitar'.
That's very true, although Crawford, Davis, Blondell, Colbert, and Bennett managed to make second careers for themselves as older women. They played mothers and matriarchs. Blondell was especially active in her later years.
shareGuess you misunderstood me and my post wasn't directed only to you, actually I agree with a lot of what you said. I don't know where you got the 32-45 age range and my comment about heartthrob of the moment joined up! When did I say or imply that? Usually "hearthrob" or maybe more accurately "young hot thing of the moment" refers to younger actors than that age range you gave.
Of course if a good young actor comes along and the role calls for someone of his age it makes sense to cast him and not a 60 yr old Ray Milland (I have always hated Ray Milland and he always seemed that age even when he wasn't that age but that is besides the point...lol). I think a lot of this is a generational thing because back in the olden days of yore society wasn't as youth-oriented as it is now and that was reflected in the movies. Now (back to the past couple decades or so) so many leading men and even women are much younger and at least to me at times don't have that same "adultness" or seem as "grown-up". I'm talking about the Bogarts, Gables, Dana Andrews', Holdens etc. compared to the current batch who at face value at times don't seem to have that same gravitas or bearing if that makes any sense. Yeah this is probably sounding like another lament that they don't make 'em like used to anymore, sniff sob... which isn't really exactly true of me because I do enjoy a lot of the new generation of actors.
This thing about the old giving way for the young transcends movies of course, look at sports and many other facets of life where great players like Willie Mays in baseball for example kept being picked for all-star teams for years after their prime and didn't deserve it but kept clogging a spot for younger more deserving players. I'm sure this is true in almost any profession or walk of life.
I believe I understood you and I see your point. However, young actors will never develop "gravitas" or "bearing" if they are relegated to playing college students and slackers into their 30s. Then when they finally do get adult roles, no one takes them seriously. I used the 32-45 range because that is basically the age range that I feel most leading men who take action roles should be in, based on my own military and law enforcement experience. Perhaps I was wrong, but I had the impression you believed I thought leading men should all be in their 20s, which I do not.
I also believe the most good roles in film are best suited for men in in that age group. The plots usually put the male protagonists in roles mostly filled by men in that group, and it is a suitable age range for the female romantic leads of today. Perhaps the problem is current American society. You're regarded as a kid until you're 26 today. It's said that most Baby Boomers still regard themselves basically as kids, and I believe it looking at some of the advertising geared toward them. I find that pathetic. Also, I don't share your nostalgia for the leading men of the past.
You will note that I did say that the average moviegoer is much younger today and I told you I am 58. I suspect we are of the same generation. Perhaps you didn't quite understand my point either. I have no problem with older actors as long as they act their age and are given romances with women who are not ridiculously younger (more than 15-20 years) than they are.
[deleted]
True enough, but Gable was ridiculously overage. Lancaster, at 45, was appropriate for Gable's role. He was too old for a Navy lieutenant, which is the equivalent of an army captain.
share[deleted]
Agreed. However, at the time the audience for film was dominated by the "Greatest Generation." They were devoted to the icons of their past, no matter how poor the casting. They had lost many years of their youth to the Great Depression and WWII, and it was difficult to admit they themselves were getting old.
share[deleted]
pmiano100 - your post is old but I have to respond. Lana Turner was a contemporary of James Stewart and Clark Gable, etc., so I wouldn't put her in the same category as Day and Monroe. Sophia Loren married a man much older than her so what's not believeable about her?
Finally, as a woman, give me Clark Gable, Cary Grant or even Sean Connery at any age and I'll be looking and thinking. You must not be a woman to even question their sex appeal to woman!!!
The man Sophia Loren married was a rich and powerful movie producer. What is unbelievable is the relationships in movies where the ordinary men the actors portray romance and even marry gorgeous women half their age. Do you think Loren would have married Ponti if he was a waiter? Would Clint Eastwood's much younger, TV anchor wife have married him if he had not been a movie star? Don't confuse the real lives of the actors with the lives of the characters they play. As for Turner, she was very young when she started acting; about that time, Day was a singer. It is fair to list them as contemporaries.
shareI'm sorry but you haven't convinced me in the least. I don't think you think like a woman, which is okay, but funny that you think you know what women think.
shareYes. I think that was due to his drinking, as some have already mentioned. Still, Run Silent Run Deep ranks very high among Gable's best performances.
"They'll print it."
"How do you know?"
I too noticed early on that he did indeed have the shakes, bloat and the worn down, tired look of a person who has been drinking too much for too long, I should know I have been there. Of course his performance was unspoiled by this but I was saddened to see him like this, so frail.
There is NO Gene for the Human Spirit.