Favorite performance? - Advise & Consent (1962) Discussion

[–] csu16387 18 years ago

Tough question. I finally saw this film and the performances are excellent all-around. Charles Laughton, Don Murray, and Walter Pidgeon were especially great. My choice would be Laughton edging out Walter Pidgeon. Lew Ayres gave a fine performance as well.

"Dry your eyes baby, it's out of character."

reply

[–] dustinthewind25 18 years ago

I think everyone is so great in this movie, it's really difficult to pin down a favorite. I lean toward Walter Pidgeon, a wonderful part for him. Such a commanding powerful presence. But in my view, he's neck and neck with Laughton. His apology speech at the end puts a lump in my throat every time. But they're all so good in this, Fonda, Murray, Meredith, Tone, Ayres, Lawford, Ford, Grizzard. I love it that this movie gives them all a chance to shine so brightly.

reply

[–] gloria-47 18 years ago

With an outstanding cast as this, it's indeed a hard choice: I am biased to Charles Laughton's last film performance, an adequate end to the career of an exceptional actor, but Walter Pidgeon, Franchot Tone, Lew Ayres, Burgess Meredith, Gene Tierney and the long list of main and, indeed, those playing lesser parts as other senators, are one of the motives this fine film remains today a joy to watch.

My one disagreement is Henry Fonda: he's so flatly angelic that his performance becomes (for me) rather uninteresting, particularly if comparing his work with Laughton's, who, albeit playing the antagonistic character -a manipulative senator with backward ideas and an impending vendetta-, he manages to make Seab Cooley a believable human being, capable, at some point, to admit his own errors. Don Murray as Senator Brig Anderson gives what Fonda doesn't: a harrowing character who really thinks that personal honour must be preserved at all costs. Fonda's Lewfingwell comes as an empty poser in comparison.

Gloria
http://rootingforlaughton.blogspot.com

reply

[–] O'Malley 18 years ago

Just about the entire cast is wonderful -- well, George Grizzard is a bit much, and Eddie Hodges's line readings are flat -- but I think Lew Ayres wonderful, subtle performance quietly steals the film.

reply

[–] gloria-47 18 years ago

heh, heh, Lew Ayres at the end is a bit the cat who gets the rat, eh? He remains in a second row throughout the picture, but Preminger is skillful enough to hint that the Vice-president may have better cards than we think. Ayres was very good in "All Quiet on the Western Front" and I often wonder why he didn't get more relevant lead parts after that.

Gloria
http://rootingforlaughton.blogspot.com

reply

[–] James_Bond_007_218 17 years ago

Meredith was excellent, but I think that Laughton, in his final film, takes the show away.

reply

[–] hobnob53 17 years ago

Tough to choose, but I think Tone and Ayres do the best jobs, quietly understated amid the more dramatic efforts around. Pidgeon and Meredith are close behind. Laughton was always good but did have a tendency, as David Lean remarked years later, to go just a bit over the top...but, as Lean added, he was so enjoyable that you didn't mind, and I think that's a good take on his performance in A&C, though he was without question superb. But then, when have any of the performers in this film not been good? Only Don Murray (a little flat) and George Grizzard (way over the edge) don't quite do their best in this movie.

reply

[–] ksf-2 17 years ago

what a cavalcade of stars! All the hollywood biggies, Betty White, just after her early TV shows from the 50's, Will Geer (Waltons, Hee Haw), even some real live U S Senators. riveting.

reply

[–] fordraff 17 years ago

You may already know this. If so, excuse it. "In 1941, Ayres alienated America's moviegoers by declaring himself a conscientious objector and refusing to fight in WW2. He was shunned by the studios, and exhibitors refused to show his films. He later volunteered for noncombatant medical service and distinguished himself under fire." This is from Katz's "The Film Encyclopedia." This period in the 40s broke the momentum of his career, and he never gained it back. You can also check out Ayres' biography here on the IMDb.

reply

[–] gloria-47 17 years ago

About WW2, I've always found a bit curious the issue of actors in uniform, and particularly regarding Ayres: he was consequent with his believes. and I wonder which was the actual involvement of other serving actors. I suspect that behind the Star in Uniform thing there was a lot of PR/propaganda and those stars who joined the forces were actually in privileged situations due to his fame (or, at least, more privileged than the ordinary Joe). In England, for instance, the younger stars joining the forces, or about to be drafted, were ultimately destined to work in entertainment to raise morale in ENSA... And most people rememberxs the in uniform because... they appeared playing soldiers in films!

So I admire Ayres for taking a step which no doubt damaged his career: he coud just have "posed" like others did, without taking chances.

Incidentally, I'm usually rather skeptic about the issue of "stars serving in the army during a war": I think that those seeing real action ((and no PR stunts) were those who served as young men long before becoming famous actors... I could mention real World War One veterans like Ronald Colman, herbert Marshall or Charles Laughton

Gloria
http://rootingforlaughton.blogspot.com

reply

[–] hobnob53 17 years ago

Lew Ayres was decorated for valor under fire serving in an ambulance corps during the war, so he was certainly no coward and didn't use his c/o status to duck service, which he could've avoided anyway (John Wayne, superpatriot always busy telling others to go off to war -- WWII, Korea, Vietnam -- ducked service even though older actors, also with families, volunteered). He genuinely abhorred bloodshed, and was a deeply spiritual man, spending most of the 1950s traveling Asia and other areas of the world studying various religions, all of this probably influenced by his starring in ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT at age 22.

reply

[–] gloria-47 17 years ago

Hobnob53,

Lew Ayres was decorated for valor under fire serving in an ambulance corps during the war, so he was certainly no coward and didn't use his c/o status to duck service, which he could've avoided anyway...

That's what I was referring to: He was no coward but he somewhat became tagged as such, for the public, because of being a Conscience Objector,... while others who were famously photographed in uniform, and paraded as soldiers under the public eye, were considered heroes (and never were close to any battle).

Gloria
http://rootingforlaughton.blogspot.com

reply

[–] hobnob53 17 years ago

Hi Gloria,

Lew's then wife, Ginger Rogers, was a reactionary Republican and divorced him after he declared himself a c/o, showing her class. MGM also terminated his contract for that reason. It wasn't the right war to express such beliefs -- possibly his bravest act of all.

hob

reply

[–] dustinthewind25 17 years ago

I don't think the timing on that is quite accurate. Ayres and Rogers officially divorced in early 1941 - some sources even say 1940 - and were separated some time before that. Ayres didn't declare his conscientious objector status until 1942, when he was drafted. I know there's one website out there dealing with the topic of conscientious objectors that references Rogers leaving Ayres when he declared his C/O status, but it doesn't appear to be an accurate claim backed up by any substantial facts.

I think Lew Ayres was a true hero though, an extremely admirable man, and a wonderful actor. He was great in this movie. He was great in everything he did. I love the parts where everybody subtlely catches on to the fact that Harley is not the shallow man they took him for.

Just as a side note, Ginger Rogers was indeed a staunch Republican - but she was very close with Bette Davis - a staunch Democrat. They were able to put aside their political differences and enjoy each other's company. A lost art today, I'm afraid. I definitely think your growth as a person gets stunted when you decide to surround yourself solely with people who think the same way you do. I've always felt that it's good to be able to disagree with someone and have spirited debates without hate or rancor entering the picture. It's important to respect someone else's point of view.

reply

[–] hobnob53 17 years ago

You may be right about Ayres and Rogers divorcing in '41 -- I've seen both 1941 and 1942 (but not '40) as the end of their marriage. Either way, I'm sure she disapproved of his c/o decision and the embarrassment it caused, or could have caused, her.

A major point of A&C, both the movie and the book, is the relative amity that existed between members of different parties, despite policy differences. Indeed, in the film, the greatest acrimony is between members of the same party. While the friendships across the aisle back, say, in the 50s and 60s were in general never as deep or solid as some like to recall through the haze of memory, things were certainly a lot more amicable and people understood one another a lot more in the era before organized political assassination brought about by PACs, websites, blogs, multi-cable TV access, politicized preachers and the like. I think also the demise of broadly based parties -- the loss of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans -- has so narrowed the focus of each party and made them so dependent on their hard core, most ideologically intolerant partisans, that it's devastated their ability to work together. For example, even the handful of so-called moderate Republicans in Congress are so nervous about opposing this administration that they routinely backtrack from tepid criticisms followed by boot-licking declarations of party loyalty -- the legacy of Tom Delay, for one, on the Republican Party. Democrats aren't as bad because they're always less organized and more fractious, vs. the GOP's mania for conformity (in the party of individualism!), but both are in bad shape and the country is the worse for it.

I'm a Democrat but a majority of my friends are Republicans and we get along fine...better than I do with many of my Democratic friends (or they with their fellow Republicans)!

reply

[–] fanaticita 12 years ago

Charles Laughton was great! Fonda too.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] !!!deleted!!! (156688) 13 years ago

What's great about the line is that after Meredith yells "I'm not lying!" Laughton gives a great look like "Oh No, there goes my credible witness!"

reply

[–] percommode 12 years ago

Saw it for the first time today and was a bit surprised, and slightly mystified, that something as good as this doesn't have as high a profile as it should.

Charles Laughton and Lew Ayres share acting honours for me: both terrific. A really good film.

reply

[–] Harold_Robbins 12 years ago

It's really, really hard to choose - most of the cast were seasoned professionals with much film and stage experience, but even the younger members such as Inga Swenson, Don Murray and George Grizzard did fine work here.

It was really nice to see Gene Tierney looking so well here, too.

"In my case, self-absorption is completely justified."

reply

[–] Earl-Janoth 8 years ago

I have to totally agree. Laughton always pulls my focus when he's on screen, so he wins. But also - Burgess Meredith was perfect! I think it's probably his best performance, certainly that I've seen. Don Murray - who I'd only seen otherwise in bloody Bus Stop and, frankly, loathed in it - was pretty damn good. Or Lew Ayres as the not-up-to-shape VP was rather well - and subtly - played.

reply

[–] lawrence142002 8 years ago

Laughton was the MVP clearly, but I think special mention should go to Paul Ford. He never gets quite the credit he deserves in general, and he was very under-billed compared to his importance to the film, I think.

Dr. Cynic Has Spoken

reply

[–] Eric-62-2 8 years ago

It's great that "Advise And Consent" gives us a rare chance to see Ford in a dramatic part since the public knew him mostly for his "Sergeant Bilko" role and many of his other famous stage/film roles were variants on that ("Teahouse of the August Moon"; "The Music Man")

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

They're all great, that's for sure, and one of the great aspects of Advise and Consent is that it is ABOUT a bunch of interesting people.

I've always been partial to Walter Pidgeon's performance, and to the fact that he was effectively given the lead in the film. It was quite a coup for him that late in his career. I don't think he was really "big" enough anymore to carry a film; Preminger simply saw him as the best man for the job(looks, voice, height, manner) and gave him the role that everybody else orbits around(even scene-stealing Laughton, he has to COME to Pidgeon.)

To all who don't like politicians, Pidgeon gives us a politician like they used to be: eloquent, authoritative, strategic, compassionate..tough. I love how Pidgeon is given a "sidekick Senator"(blustery Paul Ford) who proves quite sharp himself, but simply not as well put together as Pidgeon. So he becomes Pidgeon's "wing man." And its funny, and it works.

I like this exchange between Senator Ford and Senator Pidegeon, about the WAY too intense and raging Senator Van Ackerman:

Ford: He doesn't belong here. Its time to cut him off the vine.
Pidegon: He'll fall off.

This, as the two men are walking fast and greeting other people. Its a symbiotic relationship.

I'd say Pidgeon first, then Laughton(I love his sharp remark to an enraged Pidegon near the end "Something HAPPENED" as if to say "Stop overreacting Bob...something happened), then Lew Ayres(such a kindly , compassionate face, yet he does have what it takes to be a President if necessary). Franchot Tone's near-death, chain-smoking President is a wraith-like wrath.

Don Murray is very moving in what was then a very daring role to take.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

And I definitely dig on Peter Lawford as the playboy bachelor Senator from Rhode Island. He was President Kennedy's brother in law at that time, and a bona fide Rat Pack member, and he brings that great early sixties cool vibe to the movie. His character also gets a great moment of decision -- with a great camera move on him -- and he acts it well. (Speaking of the Rat Pack, Sinatra gets billed as "The Voice of Frank Sinatra" and he is heard singing on the jukebox in the gay bar scene -- which Sinatra had to approve. Its such weird music Sinatra sings to -- creepy, a reason I suppose that the gay sequence in A and C is much disliked.)

Meredith, great as always, small and weird.

But indeed, as mentioned up thread -- the biggest star name in the picture, Henry Fonda, isn't as good as everybody else. He seems his usual handsome, robotic weird-voiced self; not the character. He's a movie star to be sure, but he seems inauthentic given all the more spicy and realistic types around him.

Great cast. Very good movie. The gay part is controversial, but in those days, Otto Preminger put something like that in every movie -- he wanted to push the envelope. The better part of the story is "democracy in action" as practiced by the practitioners sent by each American state to do their work for them.

reply