MovieChat Forums > One, Two, Three (1961) Discussion > Horst Buchholz was irritating as hell

Horst Buchholz was irritating as hell


. Did anyone else find him horrendous in this?


"Flash, Flash, I love you, but we only have fourteen hours to save the Earth!"

reply

Yup. You're not the only one. I copied and pasted this from the Trivia section:

In James Cagney's autobiography, he says that Horst Buchholz was the only actor he really hated working with because he was uncooperative and tried all kinds of scene-stealing moves, which Cagney depended on Billy Wilder to correct. Had Wilder not firmly directed Buchholz, Cagney said that he "was going to knock Buchholz on his ass, which at several points I would have been very happy to do".

Elsewhere in the Trivia section, it says that Jimmy Cagney's experience making this film was so negative, he didn't act again for 20 years.

reply

I'm not really familiar with Buchholz' other stuff, but in this he's supposed to be irritating, as he endlessly spouts cliches about the evils of capitalism and the glories of communism. He looks great in underwear too. 

reply

Thanks, but I'm sure people know where the Trivia section is and can read info there.

I never understood why people copy from there and paste into the message boards.

But hey...I don't need to understand everything.

reply

He was playing Communist as well as a beatnik. How could he *not* be irritating, with those two major strikes against him?

reply

His character in the film isn't what we're talking about. It was Horst's asinine and over-the-top acting which tainted an otherwise great film. He was equally as irritating in The Magnificent Seven.

reply

Ha...it's annoying whenever somebody criticizes an actor's performance, others immediately stick up for the actor and say it's the character he/she is playing.

If people said they didn't like the character, then the responses here would make sense. However, when somebody says they don't like the actor's performance, then the actor--not the character--is being criticized.

There have been countless great performances of bad characters in movie history...so...I'm pretty sure people know the difference.

If we're supposed to dislike bad characters, then Brando, Ledger, Hopkins, Nicholson, Washington, etc. would all be criticized.

This comes up every single time an actor is called out for a bad performance. I know it seems like people can't tell the difference between the actor and the character, but I can ensure you, most people do.

reply

Nonsense. His portrayal of Otto is consistent with what we know about the character. None of us were there, so we don't know exactly what went on. We do have Jimmy Cagney's opinion (which certainly carries weight) but attempting to be a critic just because of Jimmy's feelings about Horst is a bit pretentious. Discuss Buchholz' performance based upon your view of things that are in or implied in the film, not a third party's thoughts.

reply

Very good points. Whether or not other actors may have " gotten along" with Buchholz during filming is beside the point insofar as a viewer's appreciation of the film and his performance is concerned.

Now one may like or dislike Buchholz's performance. Personally, I felt he was at least decent and contributed to the film's success. One must also note that he was something of a heartthrob for the ladies at the time and paired up well with the babe Pamela Tiffin.

reply

[deleted]

In reaction to all the comments here:

1) The character Horst played, Otto, was meant to be highly irritating. In this regard, I thought he played the character well.

2) True, Cagney did not like him, but that may have been his personal reaction. Also, Cagney accused him of being a scene-stealing hack, but also said that Wilder had to rein him in, which apparently he did. So I am assuming his excesses did not end up in the film.

reply

[deleted]