MovieChat Forums > Parrish (1961) Discussion > Karl's great performance

Karl's great performance

posted 16 years ago by Picasner
16 replies | jump to latest

A decent movie tho' somewhat predictable. I was really impressed with Karl Malden, who played a real hard-a**. I worked for a guy like that for years and discovered that I had been pushed to become all I was capable of, even if it was painful at times. You might not like his tactics, but Judd, himself, never really did anything illegal but was quick to pounce on any opening. Karl maintained this attitude throughout the whole movie whether he was dealing with his family, his wife, Parrish or his competition. If you watch closely, you'll see that there was always a lesson hidden in all the rage. I thought Malden played it perfectly.

[–] dubchi 15 years ago

Hello,I suggest you watch the movie again.Saying Judd Raike (Karl Malden) "never really did anything illegal" is not true-unless (via orders to Edgar) setting Tully's shade cloth and barn on fire seems legal to you. Also,in the novel read the section about Parrish's boat.Judd sold it to Parrish on an installment plan and each week withheld a payment out of Parrish's paychecks.Parrish never received the title to the boat.Judd then sold it to somebody else and never paid Parrish back.That section should have been in the movie. Judd Raike was not simply a hard-nosed businessman.He did anything he thought he could get away with-legal or not.Nobody ever stood up to him until Parrish came along.Read the novel to see how Judd Raike ends up.The movie didn't show it.A sequel would have.

[–] Picasner 15 years ago

I took your suggestion and rented the movie and watched it again.

Judd Raike made one statement in a phone conversation to his son where he said, "I don't care how you do it, just get him out of there." A very real threat, obviously, but nothing that could be directly illegal. While he may have been glad that the man went out of business, he never 'ordered' anything illegal.

I never read the book, so maybe the inference was more direct in print or perhaps other, actual illegal activities were documented which make it easy to conclude that Judd ordered the fire. The boat episode was not in the movie at all so that was completely unknown to me. Perhaps he was underhanded, but based on the movie , he was just tough.

Since there will probably not be a sequel and I've got three other books in line, how does Judd Raike end up. Mark it as a "Spoiler" so we don't ruin it for others.

Thanks,
Picasner

[–] dubchi 15 years ago

SPOILER (to the novel,not the movie)-In the novel Judd Raike has a stroke.He is a shell of himself and a threat to no one.Edgar takes over running Raike Enterprises.....A sequel could have been interesting as Edgar and Wiley's ineptness would have eventually led to mistakes that Parrish could take advantage of (such as Parrish picking up leases on privately owned farms that Raike Enterprises did not re-new on time).Even if Parrish did nothing it's not a stretch to image poor decisions by Edgar and Wiley harming the business and a competitor taking advantage.....Even now,48 years later,a movie sequel could work-with the children of Parrish and Paige battling the children of Edgar and Wiley for control of the Valley.....Interestingly,in the movie Lucy and Alison are flaky blondes and Paige a sensible brunette.In the novel Lucy and Alison are brunettes and Paige is a blonde.....If you ever read the novel you will notice that some characters were combined for the movie and some eliminated.Reading the novel for the first time after only seeing the movie almost seems like a sequel in many ways.It really fleshes out the story.

[–] Picasner 15 years ago

Thank you for a very complete and timely response. As always, when you enjoy a particular movie, you wish there was more. However, a sequel without the same main characters would probably not be as satisfying as watching the continuation of the storyline. Who am I kidding; I'd watch it anyway.

[–] PotassiumMan 13 years ago

"Maltin overplays tyrannical tobacco czar to the nth degree."
-Leonard Maltin

[–] Picasner 13 years ago

I assume you meant "Maldin," not Maltin. I usually disagree with Maltin's reviews and even the synopsis of movies in his book are tainted with his opinion. Too often, people judge a performance on whether or not they like the character. If Maldin can make you HATE Judd, then he's done his job.

[–] Noirdame79 10 years ago

Also, in the novel, Parrish is described as being dark-haired and brown-eyed, and his mother is younger in the book, with blonde hair and violet eyes.

[–] movies789 7 years ago

The movie stands or falls on the basis of its own content - not a book on which it's based. The book is not distributed with the movie ticket as a study guide to the movie. You err by over-analyzing a comparison of the two.

[–] lolarites 13 years ago

I think that's why he took this role, so it could be a departure from his usual passive "softer" roles. He did a stand up job too.

[–] TCMer 13 years ago

Whenever an actor can actually make me hate him, I'm impressed.

"What I got don't need pearls." -- Linda Darnell (1923-65)

[–] conway3000 12 years ago

You got the ambiguous ending statement by karl Malden. I's sorry too. He meant he was sorry that Parrish was not working for him since he was so much tougher and smarter than his sons. In reality he had taught Parrish a lot and had recognized his talent.

[–] jamest155 12 years ago

When Karl Malden said I'm sorry too. I thought he meant he was sorry for his mistakes in the way he raised his sons. In the way they turned out.

[–] bpress54 11 years ago

Malden's character is a typical type A personality, in other words, a total douche bag. One funny part of the movie is when Parrish comes to his office and Judd tells him "around here we don't think" then a few seconds later blasts Parrish when he said he didn't think...I worked for a jackass like this for a few years and I wound up telling him to stick the job up his ass because I wouldn't stand for being treated like a piece of *beep* I would have loved to punch him in his fat face but he wasn't worth going to jail for.

[–] Picasner 11 years ago

There's a difference between "thinking," meaning to pay attention to details and understanding their meaning in the whole picture, and "thinking," meaning guessing or assuming.
Judd was trying to tell Parish not to assume or stop his thought processes with the one problem.
I worked for a "jackass" alike that, too. How many times I wanted to beat him within an inch of his life, but I wasn't in a position to quit so I stuck it out. I soon discovered that he was a genius, knew his business inside and out, and was teaching it to me. When I began to catch on, the bulls**t stopped and I was given a lot of freedom and authority. It took a couple of years, though. Not only was he teaching, he was pushing me not to back off of problems, but to attck them no matter how painful.
His methods certainly could have been better, but they worked for me.

[–] spookyrat1 7 years ago

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with your comments regarding the pros and cons of the personality type, I certainly agree that Karl Malden dominates the movie in the acting stakes.🐭

[–] Picasner 7 years ago

Amen! All the other characters seemed bland next to his performance, especially Troy Donahue.