Balsam has got to be one of the most underrated actors in history. I loved him in this movie. He was a perfect contrast to Robards. He was wonderful. Just look at the hurt in his eyes after the speech Robards gives about him in the diner, and then listen to his rebuttle. It was powerful, poignant and poetic. I loved him and I loved this movie.
"Let's show this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown!"
Yes, yes, and yes! I love(d) this movie for New York City (the way it was), for Nick, for Murray, for Sandy (and, to tell the truth, for every other role played so PERFECTly by every member of the cast). But, for me, tied for number one w/New York City itself, is Martin Balsam's standout performance as Arnold Burns, especially in the scene you mention, which, once I fiNALLY got hold of a tape, I always hafta rewind it's just ... so ... meaningful -- and on so many proverbial levels. And yeah, I couldn't agree with you more: 'Powerful, poignant and poetic" say it all. Underlined & capitalized & yelled out loud. (I only saw this movie the first time last year, a practically incidental rental, after hearing about the death of the playwrite and on the radio they played a scene from the film and my friend remembered seeing it one afternoon on TV in the 70's when he was a pretty much the same age as the Barry Gordon andandAnd). A DVD is desperately overdue...!
shareI agree. He was absolutely superb in this movie. He won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this performance, if you didn't know. But then, everyone in this movie was just excellent, even William Daniels and Chippers the Chippermunk, LOL! And he was the perfect contrast to Robards. Two more different brothers are hard to imagine, but I think that this is just the point. They can be very different and still love and support each other, even if they don't understand each other. The Robards character was my favorite, but I think this is another point, that he may be irresponsible, but he's also the more likeable of the brothers. I agree that this a wonderful movie. Actually, it may be my favorite movie of all time. But I've only seen it on TV (numerous times), with commercials, so I should probably buy it.
shareeven though the unemployed murray is the main character, i think this film was sort of dedicated to the martin balsam character in a way, the working man. murray heroically laughs in the face of the establishment, while Balsam's yields himself to it; his character accepts himself for who he is, a responsible, established family man who keeps his values in check. i think herb gardner was trying to point out he was the real hero of the story and not murray's capricious daydreamer, as interesting and as quite imaginative as he may be.
"there are so many really attractive things you can do with a one-room apartment, if youre willing to use your imagination."
Balsam's performance, namely the rebuttal to Murray Burns' ode to nonconformity, is the film's highpoint. But for any single, childless male like myself, the latter character is much easier to sympathize with. He WAS, after all, saddled with Nick by his prodigal sister. As much as he no doubt loves his nephew--and he clearly does--he's not a mother. And just what is so noble about Arnold keeping "his values in check," anyway? What's the point of having any if they're not a guiding force in one's life? Gardner does ultimately go into the tank for the Establishment, you're right, though.
Maybe I've been single too long.
my only Q of the brother's character is that: Nick is his nephew too, right? so why wouldn't he step up to the BCW and foster Nick himself with the rest of his kids? and yes, throughout the movie, I thought how much I love Martin Balsam in all he's done. he is great!
shareIf I recall correctly, Martin Balsam's character (Arnold) does explain ( or offeres the excuse) that he'd have liked to take in Nick himself, but that on top of his own family responsibilities it was too much. A little lame perhaps, but I don't think it's a significant piece of his character - rather it's just an essential piece for setting up the background.
shareBalsm is always a joy to watch: he's able to find the sublte bits that bring richness to the smallest roles. I also have to agree about the wonderful William Daniels, so quietly burning with contained indignation at the beginning and then so eloquently communicative in his monologue to Murray, able to make us and Murray see below his surface. It's a quiet, intense and true moment, and it forces Murray to reflect. Lovely.
shareI think why Martin Balsam won the Oscar was because the context of his dramatic speech resonated with the voters and the majority of the public at the time. There was a surgence of non-conformity and social rebellion and Martin Balsam's speech without being patronizing or authoritarian gave an eloquent and dignified rebuttal on the nobility of traditional values and responsibility.
It was similar to Beatrice Straight's win for the cheated wife in "Network" where the voters all felt what her character was saying.
That's a good explanation, though Beatrice Straight was truly a powerhouse in her one scene. Martin Balsam is a terrific actor, adept at both comedy and drama, and I always appreciate him when I see him. But I would have been surprised to find out he won an Oscar for this if I hadn't already known. He was barely in it. The boy was much better; he was amazing.
shareI've been trying to find out, how much screen time did Balsam have? Because I think it might be the shortest performance ever to win an Oscar. I've heard so often that Judi Dench's 8 minutes in "Shakespeare in Love" is officially the shortest, but Balsam seemed to have less time than that.
Dave
The fact that people are debating the topic is the whole point of the film. To what extent does someone have to conform? Arnold has a family to support and a successful career he has built. Is it worth it? That's a judgment call. Murray decides in the end to conform to keep custody of his nephew. All of us make compromises in life. Are they good ones? Good question.
This isn't a very realistic story. Cases where social workers, particularly two of them are going to show up and try and take away a seemingly happy kid are rare. Unless the guardian is setting the kid on fire or something, that is not likely to happen. (and perhaps not then.) But that is not the point. The point is the choices and compromises we all make in life. I really enjoyed this movie.