MovieChat Forums > Warlock (1959) Discussion > Richard Widmark somewhat miscast

Richard Widmark somewhat miscast

posted 13 years ago by toshguy
12 replies | jump to latest

Don't get me wrong, I consider this to be one of his best performances, especially because of the "Billy, Billy, Billy..." scene, but he was a too old for the part. His character is supposed to be the big brother of 19 years old kid and Widmark was about 45 when the movie was shot and he looked it. Unlike other stars such as Fonda, Widmark never resorted to facelifts and other cosmatic surgery, so he obviously looked old enough to be his supposed brother's father. His stunning perfromance totally makes up for it, though. So I'm wondering why they didn't just change the ages a bit for the movie. Perhaps it would have ruined his character development and motivations if they had made his brother into a cousin or an adult of say 30?
By the way, is it just me or does Henry Fonda wear a toupe in this? Look at his hair here and look at it in 12 Angry Men and tell me what you think.

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

[–] Bilwick1 13 years ago

I'm pretty sure Fonda did wear a "rug" in this. Both Fonda and Widmark were playing younger men (at least they were younger in the book, from various clues) than they actually were, but that didn't bother me. Widmark's character is supposed to have grown up in the harsh Southwest, so in real life Gannon might have looked older than whatever his actual age was. (In the book I see him as about thirty.) Widmark's Johnny Gannon is pretty much the Johnny Gannon of the book; Widmark's pained, troubled expression pretty much captures Gannon's moral dilemmas in the book.

Blaisedell was clearly modelled after Wyatt Earp, and the resemblance is stronger in the book. Blaisedell in the book is a blonde with a handlebar mustache, and seems to be about the same age Earp was in Tombstone: 30-32. In the movie Dorothy Malone's Kate says that Blaisedell was the youngest colonel in the Civil War, and Wyatt was too young to fight in the War, let alone be a colonel. I guess they included that to make Fonda's Blaisedell more mature. In both the movie and book, in the Blaisedell-Gannon scenes, Blaisedell often comes across as the "elder statesman," advising Gannon; undoubtedly because Blaisedell has had more experience in gunfighting and law-enforcing.

[–] manage-932-700755 12 years ago

It's not the first film where the older brother is more than 20 years older the the younger brother. An example is John Wayne in "Rio Bravo," who looked much older than all of his brothers.

But like you, it didn't bother me in "Warlock.". I thought Widmark generally looked younger than his age because of his blonde hair, although it was receding on the front/top. Actually as I look at he film again, Widmark's hair was a nice shade of gray, but he still looked youthful. Being slender generally, thouhg not always, makes the person look younger.

Fonda may have been wearing a toupee. Still, he looked around 50 (he was actually around 53/54). His hair was thinning more in "12 Angry Men," released 2 years earlier. Talking about hair, some people have said Anthony Quinn's hair was blonde in the film. To me, it looked more like a light gray, as if he was prematurely gray. Quinn was 44 at the time, and that would have been a very unusual color of blonde hair for a man that age.

[–] paladin1947 11 years ago

I think you've got your westerns slightly mixed up. The picture you're thinking of is The Sons of Katie Elder.
In that movie there was certainly an age difference between him and his brothers.

[–] manage-932-700755 8 years ago

You may be right about Duke.

[–] gary-64659 8 years ago

In filming, hair "enhancements" are not called a toupe, a rug, or a squirrel curled up on someone's head. They are just more makeup to make the actor fit the role. Of course, if you're talking about young starlets -- male and female -- they always have to have hair, and lots of it, for the sake of their stardom, celebrity, popularity and fans worshipping their physically flawless idols. But shall we try and keep the discussion of filming at a mature level?

[–] manage-932-700755 8 years ago

Are you responding to one of my posts? I forget exactly what the issue is. I don't recall anyone talking about young actors and actresses. Whom are you suggesting is discussing this matter at an immature level (lol)?

I love the film, and the performances of the three leads. Fonda was the oldest of the three, by 9-10 years. It looked to me like they fixed his hair somewhat, maybe by adding volume to it, less likley by a hairpiece. It also seems like they may have added a little padding to Fonda's coats' shoulders and chest. Fonda had broad shoulders, but he looked huskier here than in 12 Angry Men, made 2 years earlier.

But who cares? Fonda, Quinn and Widmark fit the roles as described in the Oakley Hall novel perfectly. It is amazing though to read the far lengths the directors and producers go to trying to make perfect the star's appearance.

[–] gary-64659 8 years ago

I'm referring to the first three posts on this topic, by "toshguy", "Bilwick" and "manage" -- who all talk about an actor's looks as if he should be most concerned about his star image (and whether or not he wears hair) rather than how his overall makeup suits the role he's attempting to portray. For anyone who has had anything to do with filming in a serious way, the illusion and performance are all that counts for an actor -- not whether he's being surreptitious about disguising his receding hairline, as if the actor has anything to say about it either way. Any Hollywood star worth his salt sees himself as an actor contributing to the overall illusion on film, not as a star perpetuating the myth of eternal youth for his immature fans.

[–] manage-932-700755 8 years ago

I am Manage. You have completely mischaracterized my comments. I certainly did not "talk about an actor's looks as if he should be most concerned about his star image (and whether or not he wears hair) rather than how his overall makeup suits the role he's attempting to portray."

You are making a big deal about a minor point. I said nothing about the actors in this fine film being "surreptitious about disguising his receding hairline."

Yes I agree that "illusion and performance" are important. And I have not had what was it?) "anything to do with filming in a serious way." You sound very full of yourself. Next time try to be a little more precise in characterizing what individual reponders say- rather than superficially lumping them all together in a global way. Now I also see you are dumping on the viewing public by referring to "immature fans." Lighten up a bit. It's just not an earth shattering issue.

[–] gary-64659 8 years ago

So if you are convinced my contribution doesn't make sense in this context then you must erase it in all good conscience. You have the power, after all. On your last point, if this thread got any lighter it would go deeper beyond how much hair movie stars have and start discussing their shampoos.

[–] manage-932-700755 8 years ago

Well, their shampoos have never interested me. But you do seem intense about all of this.

[–] chaosdogglet 10 years ago

I wouldn't say he's miscast but the difference in ages certainly jarred with me as well. Also his remark to Lily ("I'm not a boy either, Miss Dollar") implies that he's meant to be a bit younger than he looks. But it is what it is. Yes, perhaps Billy should just have been a bit older!

[–] manage-932-700755 8 years ago

Frank Gorshin, who played Billy Gannon, was 19 years younger than Widmark. So let's say that Billy Gannon was said to be 19 in the film; that would make Widmark's character about 38, which was believeable. Althouhg 19 years is a wide difference in brother's ages.

In the novel, Billy Gannon was said to be about 18, and his brother, Johnny Gannon 6-8 years older than Billy, which would make him 24-26. Gorshin, who was about 26 at the time, could have passed for 18 or 19. Widmark, who was 45 a the time, could not have passed for 26, but could have passed for 38.

It just didn't bother me. Other actors were also older than the character in the book. For example, Anthony Quinn, who was 44 at the time, was playing a character who was a prematurely grey 35 in the book. Fonda, who was 54, was undoubtedly playing a character at least 10 years younger, although I don't recall if Blaisedell's age was mentioned in the book.

None of these discrepancies bothers me. Fonda, Quinn and Widmark were all good looking and slender, and while they looked their age, could have passed for a younger character, although not the 26-year old Johnny Gannon from the book that Widmar was playing. I though the casting of the 3 leads was excellent, wiht the one exception that Johnny Gannon was supposed to be ugly (lol).