MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > A Thought About Jaws, The Godfather, and...

A Thought About Jaws, The Godfather, and Psycho

posted a year ago by roger1 (2277)
20 replies | jump to latest

I'm pretty much watching anything and everything these days, the prestige(Dog Day Afternoon) and the cheese(Earthquake) from the 70's, for two.

But these thoughts were triggered when I watched Earthquake the other day.

Earthquake is a 1974 disaster movie out of Universal, which meant it had a pretty cheapjack backlot look, rather chintzy looking soundstage sets, and -- when the big earthquake came -- some pretty poor effects. (Sadly, Hitchcock's favorite matte artist, Alfred Whitlock, did matte paintings for Earthquake that were below his usual quality -- such as the London nightscape when Rusk goes to the potato trucks in Frenzy.)

What made Earthquake click at the box office was a gimmick -- "Sensurround" -- big speakers placed in movie theaters that shook the ears and bodies of the audience during the several earthquake sequences in the film. I saw Earthquake in a theater an the Sensurround made it fun -- like taking a ride at Disneyland or something.

But the movie? The story? The script? Quite bad. (Alfred Hitchcock himself was offered the direction of Earthquake, turned it down. MAYBE because of the script, maybe because he knew he was really too old to manage such a modern epic.)

CONT

[–] roger1 (2277) a year ago

And the stars? Well, Universal cast two guys with whom they had a good relationship: Charlton Heston(in the romantic heroic lead) and George Kennedy(in the "character lead" as a heroic cop.) Both Heston and Kennedy had Oscars, but by 1974, Heston had frittered his career away in "glorified B movies" like The Omega Man, Soylent Green, Skyjacked, and Airport '75. George Kennedy maintained the kind of "quality character guy" chops to shine in a movie like Clint Eastwood's "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot" as a scary psychopath, but was also consigned by Universal to a kind of "degraded pop stardom" in Airport, Airport 75, Airport 77, and Airport 1979 -- always playing the same guy, airline troubleshooter "Joe Patroni."

Here is the thing: Airport 75(with Charlton Heston and George Kennedy) came out in October of 1974 and Earthquake(with Charlton Heston and George Kennedy) came out in November of 1974.

And Jaws came out in June of 1975. And word got out that Charlton Heston had campaigned to play Police Chief Brody in Jaws.

And therein lies a "dodged bullet": there is EVERY reason to believe that "Jaws" COULD have been treated by Universal brass as "just another Universal potboiler" and given the lead to Charlton Heston and -- hey, why not -- gone ahead and cast George Kennedy as Quint the shark hunter.

Which is another way of saying that Jaws proves that "casting can make the classic." Heston and Kennedy were Oscar winners but no longer QUALITY players. They had done too much schlock -- twice together as a team.

CONT

[–] roger1 (2277) a year ago

I think the reality is that both the producers(Richard Zanuck and David Brown) and the director(Steven Spielberg) of Jaws RESISTED Heston's entreaties to play Chief Brody, and never even considered George Kennedy for Quint. Spielberg offered Quint first to fading star Lee Marvin(it could have been a comeback but he said no) and then to Sterling Hayden(a B actor who stumbled into the classics The Asphalt Jungle, The Kiling, Dr. Strangelove, The Godfather, and The Long Goodbye.) Hayden couldn't do it because of tax reasons as a tax exile in Europe. Zanuck and Brown recommended their villain from The Sting, Robert Shaw, and the rest is very much history.

Shaw evidently wrote a lot of his own dialogue(including SOME of the USS Indianpolis speech) and made sure that Quint was a character of surprise, mystery, depth and...imitations galore that year of release. Roy Scheider got "the Heston part" but brought along New York actor bona fides from The French Connection and Klute. And Spielberg cast against the type(in the book) by convertingly the studly young Hooper of the novel into the funny, sexy nerd Richard Dreyfuss(as a stand-in perhaps for Spielberg, with a little Woody Allen mixed in.)

Spielberg's talent, John Williams music, that great cast, and a very good(if not always great) script took Jaws way up and above the Earthquake/Airport 75 type of film. Movie executive Mike Medavoy said "Jaws is too good for Universal." It turned out to be not only a blockbuster, but a good movie, an Oscar movie(Score) and a lasting classic.

CONT

[–] roger1 (2277) a year ago

"The Godfather," too COULD have been cast poorly and sunk its chances as a classic. As Pauline Kael pointed out, Mario Puzo's bestseller had a ton of sex scenes to go along with the violence. The Godfather could have ended up like a Paramount B picture in the Harold Robbins tradition(The Carpetbaggers, The Adventurers.) But director Coppola wanted prestige -- Olivier or Brando for Don Vito(he got Brando). He resisted Ryan O'Neal or even the fine Jack Nicholson for Michael; found a bona fide Italian in Al Pacino, and then cast two other parts with two actors he'd worked with on The Rain People -- James Caan(Sonny) and Robert Duvall(consigulere Tom Hagen.) Caan and Duvall were, perhaps "nepotism casting"(Coppola's pals) but they were good actors who fit the parts. Brando restored his great reputation, and Pacino made his.

And The Godfather dodged the bullet of becoming "Harold Robbins The Godfather."

The Godfather source novel perhaps always had the makings for a classic movie, Puzo had written some great stuff about the mysterious Mafia and the interplay of business, family, and murder. Jaws perhaps ran a much greater risk of being "a Charlton Heston movie," but Spielberg, his multiple writers, his actors and John Williams got past it. Two classics that just might not have been.

CONT

[–] roger1 (2277) a year ago

Which brings us to Hitchcock's Psycho -- "the same but different."

Different: I don't think Hitchcock was ever confronted with the risk of having to cast the "wrong people" in Psycho, thereby cheapening the story. He made sure that the film didn't REQUIRE a big star(and what big star could have BEEN in Psycho? Doris Day as Marion Crane.) Anthony Perkins had Broadway bona fides and an Oscar nomination(Friendly Persuasion) as underpinnings, not to mention a series of leads in "serious" movies(that bombed.) Janet Leigh was perhaps "drawn from a list of available actresses" for Marion Crane, but she had just worked for Orson Welles(at a mysterious motel) in Touch of Evil, and had been the beautiful period heroine of a VERY violent and bloody epic called The Vikings(1958) which rather set the stage for the violence of Psycho in its own way.

The "Charlton Heston" casting in Psycho (forced on Hitch by Universal's adjunct agent Lew Wasserman) was beefcake John Gavin(Hitchcock had to drop first choice Stuart Whitman and take Gavin.) Hitch was cold to Gavin on the set, but he was fine for the movie -- Sam Loomis wasn't really the lead -- and Gavin got pretty good reviews for Psycho. Which left Vera Miles -- a Hitchcock contract player -- for Lila, and Martin Balsam, from a host of character guys, for Arbogast. And the casting was fine.

Perhaps more important for Psycho was Hitchcock at the helm, overseeing a very well written script by Joseph Stefano and taking the story seriously even as he had some fun with it. Robert Bloch had written the (very good) horror novella from which Psycho was taken and you only have to look at SCREENWRITER Bloch's script for William Castle's "Strait-Jacket"(1964) to see and hear exactly how Psycho could have been turned into a B-meller. Poor plotting and motivations; banal dialogue, unbelievable characters, etc.

CONT

[–] roger1 (2277) a year ago

In coming to these thoughts, I think that The Godfather and Jaws were linked by "making sure the casting was quality and right for the parts." Charlton Heston and George Kennedy in Jaws would have sunk the movie(and likely frustrated Spielberg in trying to direct them; he'd know he was stuck with a B). Ernest Borgnine as Don Vito would have turned that great part into a supporting part and no matter their star power, neither Ryan O'Neal nor Jack Nicholson nor Dustin Hoffman "fit" young Michael.

Psycho didn't have to dodge any casting bullets(although, famously, what if Anthony Perkins said NO to Norman? Roddy McDowall, Dean Stockwell?)...but Hitchcock DID make sure to do what he set out to do: to make a William Castle or Roger Corman movie but with all the care(primarily in script) of a serious A film.

We are so lucky to have Psycho, Jaws, and The Godfather. Sometimes I'm not sure we realize just how lucky we were.

And remember: Hitchcock was at one time so discouraged by the rough cut(less music!) of Psycho that he wanted to cut it down for an entirely non-violent 3-part episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents(the half hour show.)

[–] telegonus (727) a year ago

I saw Earthquake on television maybe twenty years ago. It was fun, though it had a movie-of-the-week feel to it due to its veteran cast. In this, it felt like a pricey B. One could say the same about Airport, I suppose, which I remember the ads for, everywhere, in newspapers and magazines, late in my senior year in high school. That, too, featured a veteran cast, but the stars were younger, and some still had at the very least a modicum of box-office clout (and don't let's forget The Wild Bunch, yet another A level picture featuring older stars, which was quite a critical and box-office success).

[–] roger1 (2277) a year ago

Hey telegonus.

Formerly ecarle here...EC.

I saw Earthquake on television maybe twenty years ago.

---

I saw it on release in November of 1974 and I must admit that the Sensurround gimmick was fun. I would akin it to a ride created years later -- the Star Wars ride at Disneyland, where you just seat in a theater seat and everything rocks and rolls.

But it wasn't real good.

---

t was fun, though it had a movie-of-the-week feel to it due to its veteran cast.

--

I fear that too many movies out of Universal in the 70's had a TV movie look, even if the budgets were big. Something about how Universal soundstage sets were built, and the familiarity of the backlot.

--

In this, it felt like a pricey B. One could say the same about Airport, I suppose, which I remember the ads for, everywhere, in newspapers and magazines, late in my senior year in high school.

--

Well Airport had been a big paperback bestseller and people were waiting for it and...it drew in a lot of "old people" even in the counterculture year of 1970. It was more of a "Grand Hotel soap opera' than a disaster movie, the mad bomber didn't bring down the plane.

---

That, too, featured a veteran cast, but the stars were younger, and some still had at the very least a modicum of box-office clout (and don't let's forget The Wild Bunch, yet another A level picture featuring older stars, which was quite a critical and box-office success).

---

CONT

[–] roger1 (2277) a year ago

As the 50's turned into the 60's, we lost a lot of Golden Age stars to retirement(Cagney, Grant), death (Gable, Cooper, Tracy in 1967) or old age(Stewart, Fonda.) New stars like Paul Newman and Steve McQueen moved up to fill the gap. But there was an age group BETWEEN Gable and Newman and they started to land some final important pictures around 1969/1970: William Holden in The Wild Bunch; Lancaster and Dino in Airport.

It was kind of a "last hurrah" for all of that age bracket -- some of them had to go off to TV in the 70's. Rock Hudson had his "MacMillan and Wife" TV series; Tony Curtis had several series;
Lancaster and Kirk Douglas took movie parts for lower pay. And the 70s flooded with "new young male stars" some who stuck around(Nicholson, Eastwood, Reynolds, Pacino) and some who did not(Gould, O'Neal, Voight.)

I always thought William Holden was a special case. Whereas Lancaster and Dino ended up in the very old-fashioned "Airport," Holden starred in the ultra-violent New Hollywood excitement of The Wild Bunch..which had a lot of young fans, including George Lucas.

Thus William Holden got a new lease on clout. He was bankable again and got one role in the blockbuster The Towering Inferno and one role(Oscar-nommed) in Network and would have stayed pretty hot if alcohol didn't ruin his face and eventually kill him in a famous all-alone-fall and head injury in 1981.

[–] telegonus (727) 10 months ago

Good stuff here, EC. As to stars that lasted, to continue somewhat in your line of thinking, Newman and Redford managed, together and separately, to hang in there, through the 70s, no surprise with Robert, and not much, either, as I think about, to the always hipster friendly Paul, who aged well (and honestly) and took parts that were right for him, not just a hot project they wanted a big name star for. As his star didn't wane through the 80s, even into the 90s somewhat, his budgets weren't as big. It seems that Newman could deliver at the box-office with mainstream art films that made good money, especially as they weren't so expensive to make. It's kind of weird to think that he was still kind of a hip guy, with his popcorn and salad dressings, which kept his name and face in public, and lent him an air of legitimacy through the Reagan years and beyond. Redford worked more as a director, though he remained (apparently) bankable, though I doubt many of his later starring efforts were made on the scale of Out Of Africa, which might have been a good farewell to acting film for him, as he turned to directing, but that didn't happen.

[–] roger1 (2277) 10 months ago

Good stuff here, EC.

--
Devil of a time getting back in AS EC. Thanks for reassuring me of my identity.

--

As to stars that lasted, to continue somewhat in your line of thinking, Newman and Redford managed, together and separately, to hang in there, through the 70s, no surprise with Robert, and not much, either, as I think about, to the always hipster friendly Paul, who aged well (and honestly) and took parts that were right for him, not just a hot project they wanted a big name star for.

---

Newman had about a 14 year start on Redford as a movie star -- and about that more in age, yes?.
Somewhat interestingly, Newman and Steve McQueen were the main "paired rivals" in the 60's, with McQueen slowly sneaking up on Newman's star level(McQueen had been Newman's way-down-the cast list SUPPORT in "Somebody Up There Likes Me" in 1956.) McQueen crept up, from The Magnificent Seven to The Great Escape to The Cinncinati Kid(a more fun "Hustler") to The Sand Pebbles(McQueen's only Best Actor nominated Oscar performance, in a role that Newman turned down to do...Torn Curtain!) and then triumphantly riding Bullitt to equal superstardom with Paul as of 1968/1969.

Newman hung in there. McQueen quit Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid over billing, other "equal stars" like Brando and Beatty turned it down, and Newman ended up bringing in Redford (who'd put in about 10 years in TV and not-quite-movie stardom) ...and made him a star.

Came the 70's, McQueen sort of retired(after doing The Towering Inferno with Newman) and by 1980, died young at 50.

Meanwhile, Redford became a major star in the 70's as had been Newman in the 60s. When Newman sort of amiably forced himself into The Sting(in what was meant to be a supporting role for Peter Boyle), Redford had to give Newman top billing and a cut of his pay.

CONT

[–] roger1 (2277) 10 months ago

Pals or not, Redford rather revealed something in his DVD interview on The Sting. With a too-innocent blink in his eyes, Redford said, "the studios weren't that high on Newman at the time, they actually thought(slight wince) that I was a bigger star by then." Ouch. Well, Redford kept having to express gratitude to Newman for The Sundance Kid, it must have felt good to say that. For his part in the same interview, Newman almost cackled about how he had "the big scene and won it all"(his poker game with Robert Shaw.) A little competition, there.

No matter. Newman and Redford never really lost their star prestige and both lasted. They also made their way into an era where "older male stars" weren't put out to pasture like William Holden , Glenn Ford and Richard Widmark in Westerns in the 60s.

It was odd. No sooner did Steve McQueen pass in 1980 that Paul Newman scored three comeback hits: Fort Apache the Bronx(1980), Absence of Malice(1981) and The Verdict(in a role that "bigger star" Robert Redford quit.)

CONT

[–] roger1 (2277) 10 months ago

(Newmans) star didn't wane through the 80s, even into the 90s somewhat,

---

He grabbed an Oscar nom for Best Actor for Nobody's Fool in the 90s(1994) -- and he was great in it, a fine old small town handyman down on his luck but hanging in there. I think maybe he got one more nod(Supporting) for The Road To Perdition. I would have to check. That was in the 2000s!

---

his budgets weren't as big.

--

Around 1980, Newman gave a Barbara Walters interview and I remember his quote: "Its tough to work as a leading man when the biggest stars out there are a shark and a robot." Heh. But Newman kept finding prestige pictures -- plus one great big hilarious grossout of a "macho humor" movie called Slapshot(1977) which was one of his favorites -- he played hockey, fought, cussed -- hilarious.

---

It seems that Newman could deliver at the box-office with mainstream art films that made good money, especially as they weren't so expensive to make. It's kind of weird to think that he was still kind of a hip guy, with his popcorn and salad dressings, which kept his name and face in public, and lent him an air of legitimacy through the Reagan years and beyond

---

I think there are young people who only knew Paul Newman via his face on those salad dressing bottles!(all the money went to HIS Hole in the Wall charity.) As the years went on, Newman did some prestige pieces with wife Joanne Woodward(by the time they did Mr. and Mrs. Bridge together, he finally looked as plain-ish as she did.) And he was willing to take second billing to Kevin Costner and Tom Hanks to stay in major movies. (I recall Costner plugging HIS movie on Letterman and Letterman kept saying "well you're a fine actor and star, but c'mon...Paul NEWMAN..he's the biggest, right? Bigger than me, bigger than you!" Newman was Letterman's friend, I think he was needling Costner over the billing thing.

CONT

[–] roger1 (2277) 10 months ago

Redford worked more as a director, though he remained (apparently) bankable, though I doubt many of his later starring efforts were made on the scale of Out Of Africa, which might have been a good farewell to acting film for him, as he turned to directing, but that didn't happen.

---

Redford made one or two movies a YEAR and rather flooded the 70's as a star, indeed outdistancing Newman for a bit. But they seemed to even out in the 80s and 90s. Simply put, Redford kept "backing away' from starring movies and would go away on breaks of several years.

The weird thing about Redford was that -- opposed to Newman, whose face aged agelessly -- Redford's face got all wrinkly and crinkly(too much Sundance sun?) fast. The good looks were still there, the fit body(he did many shirtless scenes as he grew older to show off and deflect from the face.)

Redford directed sometimes, but seemed a better bet with the studios if he acted. Unlike Newman, Redford is still alive today -- but swears that the recent "The Old Man and the Gun" is his last movie.

Sidebar: from the Golden Era, only one movie star pretty much went out completely on top: Cary Grant, who retired at 62(with graying hair, a slightly puffy body and all the star charisma in the world) in a movie called Walk Don't Run(where he played a matchmatker.) He NEVER EVER got lured back to movies again. And lived 20 more years, rich and evidently enjoying himself and his only child Jennifer.

Compare this to James Stewart and Henry Fonda both in flop TV series in the 70's. Or Henry Fonda -- before the career-saving and Oscar winning turn in On Golden Pond -- appearing in "Tentacles," (a Jaws ripoff) and a nothing cameo in "Rollercoaster." Grant never had to do THAT.

Newman aged as gracefully as Grant and worked far beyond age 62...but he had to take those second billings, and he did some PBS TV work. Still, I'd say that Newman and Redford kept it going to the end.

CONT

[–] roger1 (2277) 10 months ago

And Jack Nicholson. Like Cary Grant, Nicholson would never do talk shows, and only showed up on TV for the Oscars (I think Jack finally did one 60 Minutes interview.)

Jack retired a star. But even HE took second -- and sometimes third -- billing in movies like A Few Good Men, Anger Management, and The Departed(third there, behind Leo and Matt Damon.)

I guess ol' Cary Grant holds the record. Top billing to the end. Bankable to the end. No TV.

James Cagney retired in 1961 and came back in 1981, with top billing in the prestige movie "Ragtime." He had some of his old fire, but alas, he looked old and immobile. And then he did a TV movie about an old boxer. Terrible. He should have followed Cary's lead.

[–] telegonus (727) 10 months ago

Thanks for all the responses, EC (yeah, it's still that with me). I wish you the best with the admins. (Clore, when kicked off the IMDB, original version, he became Clore2, with maybe a slight diacritical mark addition, and Clore2 he remained.)

As to James Cagney, he should have gone out a winner, as originally planned. I hate the movie Ragtime, thought it was beneath Cagney. A WTF career move, and I saw it in the theater. Milos Forman's prestige is somewhat of a mystery to me (I do "get" Ken Russell's cult status, but some directors just never got on my radar screen).

For a long while retiring from the screen gracefully was an option, whether it was due to the coming of the talkies or encroaching middle age and a world war, in the 40s. The 50s, less so. Some retired, others didn't. Then there were the small number of players who "semi-officially" retired, then came back for a handful of movie and/or TV appearances (Tallulah Bankhead, never much of a movie name, Franchot Tone, Gene Tierney, albeit briefly).

But professional dignity, or whatever one chooses to call it, is tough for even the biggest star to maintain; or much less the best actor (think Olivier, Gielgud and Richardson, active to the end, or as close as their health would permit). I can appreciate that Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire remained active or semi-active, long after their dancing careers were largely over. They liked being busy, and they had radiant smiles. It almost felt that the world was a better place than it really was when the old-timers remained in the sun, at least some of the time. Nowadays, with less of a sense of history, of continuum, the world doesn't quite seem so bright as it once did. Or maybe that's just me. Likely, eh?

[–] roger1 (2277) 10 months ago

Thanks for all the responses, EC (yeah, it's still that with me). I wish you the best with the admins. (Clore, when kicked off the IMDB, original version, he became Clore2, with maybe a slight diacritical mark addition, and Clore2 he remained.)

---

I've tried ecarle2, to no avail yet. I'm not computer savvy, but I'm smart enough to have figured out what's stopping me from making the fix..just not how to fix it. Someday.

----

As to James Cagney, he should have gone out a winner, as originally planned.

---

Cagney's choices stand alongside Cary Grant's -- what happens if you DO come back, instead of staying retired.

Cagney had been gone a LONG time, so the announcement that he was coming back WAS exciting. (And Grant was still alive and looking great in 1981 -- I personally saw him in 1980 -- so...maybe...)

---

I hate the movie Ragtime, thought it was beneath Cagney. A WTF career move, and I saw it in the theater.

---

I don't much remember it. The book had been all the critical rage, but rather "high art." It was Oscar bait that didn't come through. Milos Forman's prestige is somewhat of a mystery to me (I do "get" Ken Russell's cult status, but some directors just never got on my radar screen).

---
Well, Forman had an "art foreign film" rep before One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest made him a "superstar prestige director" and Hollywood treated him accordingly. Gave him Ragtime(and took it away from Robert Altman.) Gave him Hair. Gave him Amadeus(a final triumph.) People get pigeonholed.

In a similar way, Oliver Stone became the "go to" guy for political films -- Wall Street(a business s film with a political bent), JFK, Nixon, and his Vietnam trilogy. They were interesting films, but Stone was rather heavy handed about everything and...its like he became the only guy they would GREENLIGHT for political stuff.

----

CONT

[–] roger1 (2277) 10 months ago

For a long while retiring from the screen gracefully was an option, whether it was due to the coming of the talkies or encroaching middle age and a world war, in the 40s. The 50s, less so. Some retired, others didn't. Then there were the small number of players who "semi-officially" retired, then came back for a handful of movie and/or TV appearances (Tallulah Bankhead, never much of a movie name, Franchot Tone, Gene Tierney, albeit briefly).

---

Funny thing about Tallulah Bankhead. Quite the "star personality" when I was growing up but indeed not much of a movie star and she ends up as the "central gimmick" in Hitchcock's Lifeboat...that she was even IN it. And the STAR. When she really wasn't one. A novelty act, I've always felt. But she was young and overtly sexual in that film...not quite the aged diva of later years(like when she played The Black Widow on the Batman TV show.)

I feel that I've "spread the net" on several topics under one umbrella here. On the table to start is "movie stars of great longevity as top stars." That's Cary Grant and Paul Newman and Robert Redford..and currently Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino. But there is also the issue of "when to retire" (Grant went out on top, Stewart made a couple of failed TV series and then some movie cameos.)

Still, I would say that James Stewart will ALWAYS be one of the greats. His last 10 years or so of "not mattering" cannot put a dent in his reputation as a top star and great actor in the 30s, 40s, 50s.

Indeed, Stewart, Grant, and Bogart can claim the fame of each man making an incredible number of CLASSIC movies. Especially Bogart.

CONT

[–] roger1 (2277) 10 months ago

Bogart died young from cigarettes at age 57 in 1957. He and Alfred Hitchcock were both born in 1899 and thus their age matched the final two digits of every year they lived(for most months.)

Imagine if Hitchcock had died in 1957. There would have been NO Vertigo, NO North by Northwest, NO Psycho, NO The Birds...even NO Frenzy. Hitchcock outlived Bogie by 23 years and its harrowing to think what we would have lost if he had not.

Smoking and poor eating, and drinking, took out a lot of male movie stars young back then: Bogart, Gable, Cooper and Tracy all died pretty much from their vices, and most didn't clear 60. (Tracy made it to 67 but he LOOKED 87 at the end.)

Modern lack of smoking, good health and good medicine has kept Clint Eastwood working in his 90s even as Michael Caine and Gene Hackman are retired but living well in THEIR 90s. (Well Caine may work again; we'll see.) I like the longevity of these guys. I want to emulate them. Hah.

And just recently, DeNiro and Pacino almost simultaneously announced they they are fathers of new babies at 79 and 80 , or whereabouts...with the young women that old male stars get to have. No judgment from me, again, I love reading about the exploits of people years OLDER than me. Helps keep me young.

CONT

[–] roger1 (2277) 10 months ago

But professional dignity, or whatever one chooses to call it, is tough for even the biggest star to maintain; or much less the best actor (think Olivier, Gielgud and Richardson, active to the end, or as close as their health would permit).

---

Yes. As much as Cary Grant can be "saluted" for his early retirement at a level of top stardom, he did it among other reasons because he knew he was a ROMANTIC, sexual star. He didn't want to play old man roles.

But a lot of OTHER actors LOVED playing old man roles. Olivier for one.

Oliver went through, it seemed, the entire last ten years of his life and career as "so sick that he might not survive long enough to finish the movie he was on" as he worked on movie after movie after movie and DID survive.

---

I can appreciate that Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire remained active or semi-active, long after their dancing careers were largely over. They liked being busy, and they had radiant smiles. It almost felt that the world was a better place than it really was when the old-timers remained in the sun, at least some of the time.

----

Kelly in particular just seemed "up" all the time. Kelly and Astaire were great athletes(as dancers) in great shape, and paired up to host a "That's Entertainment" movie and other things.

--

Nowadays, with less of a sense of history, of continuum, the world doesn't quite seem so bright as it once did. Or maybe that's just me. Likely, eh?

---
Likely...perhaps. Its getting rough out there. A certain entrenched hysteria has taken over politics, largely stoked by cable news(for the $$$) and this here infernal internet machine(to enjoy our corner of it, we have to put up for the horrors of it elsewhere.)

I remain, however, an optimist. I see babies being born to loving families all the time, around me. There will be a future.

CONT

[–] roger1 (2277) 10 months ago

There also seems to be an acceleration away from the history of movies. I can't get a conversation going with young people about any actor before 1990, it seems.

Oh, well, I at least got to live through this era of movie entertainment. From Hitchcock to Spielberg to Scorsese to Tarantino. Its been a great ride.

So far.

PS. A 22-year old of my acquaintance recently said to me, "Hey, The Birds was on the other night. Pretty good. That's from your guy ...what was his name? Hitchcock, right? " So teaching movie history one at a time...