Burt and Lee


Burt Lancaster and Lee Marvin make a great "buddy-team" in "The Professionals."
It's a four-man team, but as usual with these things, two of them are a bit closer (think of Yul Brynner and Steve McQueen as the two lead buddies of "The Magnficent Seven.")

Burt Lancaster had won the Best Actor Oscar in writer-director Richard Brooks' "Elmer Gantry" (1960.) When Brooks offered him the role of the explosives expert in "The Professionals," Lancaster was wary: why wasn't Brooks offering him the role of the GROUP LEADER, that went to Marvin.

Brooks told Lancaster that Lee Marvin's character was the group leader, but that the other guy got all the women, had more funny lines, was more of a wild adventurer. Brooks convinced Lancaster it was time to leave his "too serious" roles and play something like the wild young pirates of his youth. Lancaster said: "OK."

However: Lee Marvin had only recently achieved leading man stardom. For 15 years, Marvin had been a supporting actor in movies, often under bigger stars like Burt Lancaster. Word is that Marvin therefore felt insecure about starring with Lancaster and "giving him orders" in character. Marvin was, therefore, drunk a lot while making this movie.

But you sure can't tell, can you? Lee Marvin is taciturn and super-cool, Lancaster a funny ladies man who proves quite tough and "professional" under fire.

It's a pleasure to watch these two screen greats act together. Boy, do I miss them.

reply

Yeah, this is an example of Marvin at close to his best, thoughtful, cool, laconically searching (almost meditative), and restrained. He sure seems sober, and I think that it's a more powerful piece of acting than his comic work in Cat Ballou, which had won him an Academy Award for Best Actor the previous year.

Overall, The Professionals seems to prefigure The Wild Bunch in terms of physical, psychological, and historical milieu, with four of the last "real men" trying to adhere to a code of honor on a deep venture into Mexico (and Robert Ryan plays a leading role in both films). The question in The Professionals is what constitutes that code of honor: strict, contractual professionalism or romantic moralism. Ultimately, the film opts for the latter, and it's there that it compromises. All along, Marvin has been telling Lancaster that they have to follow their mission through, even if it's been rigged, even if it doesn't appear worth it, even if the woman doesn't want to be rescued. After all, they made a deal, and they're going to be paid. Lancaster, on the other hand, is the romantic who makes the opposite argument even as he executes the mission. But at the end of the film, having completed the journey, Marvin changes his mind, helping Claudia Cardinale to escape and rejecting the money. Now, Marvin's character is a thoughtful sort who listens, so it's not implausible that he could have changed his mind as to what consitutes the code of honor, especially with the professional duty having been completed. However, his decision still strikes me as a bit unnatural and not entirely satisfying (although it satisfied audiences and the conventions of classical Hollywood cinema). Then again, the year was 1966, not 1969, and the characters here are heroes, not quite anti-heroes. The tide in Hollywood was starting to shift (look at the bloodthirsty Western Duel at Diablo released that same year), but it hadn't quite turned yet, and a romantic, escapist ending remained the norm. As a mid-sixties' film, The Professionals probably represents the mid-point between the early sixties' The Magnificent Seven (also a movie about an American gang venturing into Mexico) and the late sixties' The Wild Bunch. And overall, the mid-sixties, while starting to cloud, were still a relatively auspicious and sanguine time: the majority of Americans supported the effort in Vietnam and believed that it could be won, The Beatles hadn't fully turned psychedelic and anti-establishment yet, and grand, glorious musicals were all the rage in Hollywood. The chaotic discord symbolized by The Wild Bunch was around the corner, but it hadn't exploded quite yet. In that sense, a romantic compromise was to be expected.

In any event, the film's strengths are Richard Brooks' no-nonsense, even-keeled direction; exquisite writing (especially in terms of dialogue and character delineation) from Brooks and novelist Frank O'Rourke; ruggedly beautiful cinematography from Conrad Hall, making expressive use of the bold desert landscapes and a color scheme emphasizing orange, brown, beige, and sienna; and the tough, gritty performances from Lancaster, Marvin, Strode, Ryan, Palance, and even Cardinale. One issue that I did miss would have been some conflict between one of the fellow professionals and the black Strode, signifying either overt or subtle racism. Some internal dissension in that sense would have added tension and complexity, but I'm guessing that the character was written to be a white man and that Brooks cast Strode without regard for color or race. And again, the year was 1966 (actually, filming began in the fall of 1965), and Hollywood certainly hadn't caught on to the early stirrings of Black Power and the implications of Watts. The Martin Luther King "I have a dream" speech remained the guiding ethos towards racial harmony, with the bombast and bloodshed of the late sixties on the brink and yet a world away.

reply

SPOILERS for "The Professionals," "The Magnificent Seven" and "The Wild Bunch."

Good calls, here, joekidd.

By the time the 60's were over, "The Magnificent Seven," "The Professionals" and "The Wild Bunch" indeed seemed like a linked trio with ever-shifting historic significance as the decade went on. Also, all three were great fun (even "The Wild Bunch" was fun, even though no one would admit it now. The final gunbattle was as exhilarating as it was abhorrent, and there was some sort of manly grace in how the Bunch went down.)

The three films were most strongly linked, I think, by these factors:

1. They are stories of American adventurers heading "south of the border" into Mexico on some sort of mission.

2. The men are part of a team (in "Bunch" a gang), and there is pleasure in seeing their interaction and cameraderie.

3. Within each team are two above the rest -- "buddies." Brynner and McQueen form a spontaneous buddy-team on first meeting in "The Magnificent Seven." But Burt Lancaster/Lee Marvin and William Holden/Ernest Borgnine are old friends, with a long history.

Two of the tales share a backdrop: Mexico and the Mexican revolution as a historical "throwback" from the more modern turn-of-the-20th Century America of motorcars and machine guns.

Where "The Professionals" differs most strongly from both "The Magnificent Seven" and "The Wild Bunch" is in its outcome for the main team:

...they all survive.

"The Magnificent Seven" had given us a split decision: the main buddies survived, but the supporting team members died (one could identify with the survivors and the martyrs almost equally.) "The Wild Bunch" famously sent every member of the gang down in bloody death (save one: the old man nobody thought could survive. That's HOW he got old when others died young.)

But there is a caper-comedy, almost fairy-tale-like aspect to the fact that all four of "the professionals" survive their mission, and elect to reject any pay or reward in favor of "doing the right thing." Though realistic things happen in "The Professionals" (Palance's revolutionaries execute government soldiers; the professionals kill many of Palance's men and their woman; we're told of the torture-murder of Marvin's Mexican revolutionary wife), the ultimate mood of the picture is upbeat and fanciful -- pure entertainment.

Arriving as it did on the edge of the counterculture, "The Professionals" pays some lip service to revolution ("Since the end of time," Lancaster notes, "the good guys versus the bad guys. Question is: who are the good guys?") and speaks sympathetically to its Mexican characters at the expense of Ralph Bellamy's US millionaire. Strode's color issue is addressed only by Marvin's silent snort of contempt when Bellamy asks him: "Any problems working with a Negro?" ...right in front of Strode.

But the true advance of "The Professionals" (from the more innocent "Magnificent Seven" of 1960) was in getting a few lines and concepts past the waning Hays Code censors:

Bellamy: "You bastard!"
Marvin: "In my case, an accident of birth. But you sir, are a self-made man."

OR

Lancaster: Do you realize that humans are the only animals who make love face to face?

Not to mention the mildly graphic physical motions Lancaster is shown going through in the bedroom as he is introduced, and the opening gestures of lovemaking twixt Palance and Cardinale.

In short, "The Professionals" was a "mid-point" 60's movie on the way to the R-rated realities of "The Wild Bunch" and the spaghetti Westerns, but rather unto itself as well-crafted, highly-budgeted, star-acted Western entertainment. It didn't look like a Universal backlot job.

P.S. Lee Marvin committed to "The Wild Bunch" and then pulled out, for two reasons. One: more money to make the musical "Paint Your Wagon" and "expand his range" (oops!) Two: Marvin decided "The Wild Bunch" in script form was too much like "The Professionals." Marvin was very right...but very WRONG.


reply

>> Lee Marvin committed to "The Wild Bunch" and then pulled out, for two reasons. One: more money to make the musical "Paint Your Wagon" and "expand his range" (oops!) Two: Marvin decided "The Wild Bunch" in script form was too much like "The Professionals." Marvin was very right...but very WRONG.<<

It would have been interesting to see Marvin as Pike Bishop, but, Damn, Holden was absolutely perfect -- certainly my favorite role of his.

jc

reply

I agree. "The Wild Bunch" is a classic for many reasons, but one may be the perfection of casting William Holden -- one of the greatest stars of the fifties fallen a bit on hard times in the late sixties -- as Pike. Had the very hot Lee Marvin taken the role, some of the pathos and grandeur of Holden's performance would have been gone.

Another interesting casting "glitch" in "The Wild Bunch" had been in the casting of Ernest Borgnine as Dutch, Pike/Holden's best friend.

Peckinpah had originally seen Dutch as a young man -- I think offers went out to George Peppard, Alex Cord, and the like. But the producer demanded that Peckinpah cast Borgnine in the role (they were friends.) It turned out great -- Borgnine (like Holden, a former Best Actor Oscar winner) gave one of his best performances as an age-peer of Holden, rather than as a surrogate son as the part had been scripted.

P.S. Marvin was "hot" when he turned down "The Wild Bunch," but he was rather cold and doing poor movies (like "The Klansman") when he turned down yet another great role 6 years later. Marvin was first choice for Quint, the Robert Shaw role in "Jaws." What was he thinking?

reply

And I agree, too. Not only did Holden's pathos render him perfect for the part, but Marvin would have only been 44 during the shooting, thus not quite granting him the same washed-up, past-his-prime sensibility. Holden's career arc had prepared him perfectly for the role of Pike. He had once been the leading movie star in America, he'd fallen on hard times and watched his career diminish, and then at 50, as someone who'd seemingly outlived his era, he was making a "last stand." (As it turned out, of course, Holden enjoyed something of a career revival thanks to The Wild Bunch, although he never regained major commercial stardom.)

Ecarle, it is amazing how these three "venture into Mexico" Westerns, The Magnificent Seven (1960), The Professionals (1966), and The Wild Bunch (1969), serve as litmus tests or snapshots of the different "acts" of the 1960s. Similarly, they effectively reflect the varying interpretations of Vietnam as it developed through the years in American eyes. The Magnificent Seven was a pure fantasy of Third World counter-insurgency, basically what U.S. intelligentsia was imagining at a time when America's interest in Vietnam was minimal yet growing in the government channels. The Professionals reflected a grttier, bloodier mission, but one that could still be idealistically won without excessive casualties. The Wild Bunch, on the other hand, reflected a lost cause and a blood bath, fatalistic and yet stubborn, going down shooting in a foreign quagmire.

reply

I think that Vietnam analysis is on the mark, joekidd. "The Magnificent Seven" at least tries to make a case for "the noble cause" of third world intervention. I wonder if JFK saw the movie as he inaugurated the sending of "American advisors" to Vietnam that would grow and grow and grow...

I wanted to reflect "a few posts up" on my remarking that Lee Marvin was reportedly drunk while making "The Professionals."

You can't see it on screen, except that Don Siegel wrote of Marvin's being drunk on the set of "The Killers" (1964), and said that Marvin would get very quiet when he was drunk, so as not to reveal his status.

In "The Professionals," Marvin often says nothing, simply looks around. Maybe that's when he was in the cups. Also, I'll bet many "drunk takes" were simply thrown out (Burt Lancaster reportedly threatened Marvin with violence over his drunkenness in one scene with the two men high on a rock together.)

The only times I can recall an actor being visibly drunk on screen in a movie are three: Richard Burton in "The Klansman" (with Lee Marvin, who reportedly held his liquor better than Burton); Richard Boone in "The Big Sleep" remake; and Gig Young near the end of "The Hindenberg." It was terrible to see in all three cases.

I posted on Lee Marvin's career some time ago. Maybe I'll go over to his threads and bump it for discussion. After a stalwart career as a supporting heavy ("The Big Heat," "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance") Marvin was absolutely huge as a star from about 1965 (with "Cat Ballou" and "Ship of Fools" in the same year) to about 1969 (when the musical "Paint Your Wagon" rather unfairly sunk his reputation).

Marvin hit stardom in middle-age, with that great prematurely gray hair and that deep, masculine voice. A decorated WWII hero, martial arts expert, and drunk, Marvin was the "real deal" among movie tough guys, and his brief string of 60's hits -- "Cat Ballou," "The Professionals," "The Dirty Dozen," and "Point Blank" -- made a little bit of movie history for Marvin.

Still, William Holden was much better casting for "The Wild Bunch."

reply

Marvin did turn in some good work in the 1970's, especially in "Emperor of the North Pole", but made some questionable choices that hurt his career, such as "Paint Your Wagon", "The Klansman" and "Avalanche Express", all mediocre films. I remember how bad "The Klansman" was, not because of Marvin but because of how obviously drunk Richard Burton was while making that film.

Even late in his career, when he looked about 20 years older than he really was and was not getting great roles, Marvin's screen presence still towered over just about everyone. I keep reading about today's "badasses" such as Travolta, Willis, Stallone and others. They're Cub Scouts next to Marvin - he has no equal among today's actors.

reply

I remember how bad "The Klansman" was, not because of Marvin but because of how obviously drunk Richard Burton was while making that film.

Now what I'd love to learn would be the backstory for that film ...

reply

I keep reading about today's "badasses" such as Travolta, Willis, Stallone and others. They're Cub Scouts next to Marvin - he has no equal among today's actors.

Marvin was at his implacable, unrelenting, unmitigated best in Point Blank. It's ironic that he won Best Actor for his work in Cat Ballou as opposed to one of his definitive hard-boiled roles, but Marvin at his hardest probably scared the rest of Hollywood. It's too bad that he and Eastwood couldn't have co-starred in a serious genre film rather than a musical, but both actors were apparently trying to open up their range and cast themselves against type.

reply

Maybe it's because I have a stage background and I love musicals, but I didn't think that "Paint Your Wagon" was that bad a movie.

reply

Maybe it's because I have a stage background and I love musicals, but I didn't think that "Paint Your Wagon" was that bad a movie.


Paint Your Wagon retains some curiosity value, at least. I'm just saying that it doesn't showcase either Marvin or Eastwood in his archetypal tough-guy groove, but then again, it isn't supposed to.

reply

(with Lee Marvin, who reportedly held his liquor better than Burton);

It's interesting that you say that, ecarle. According to Clint Eastwood, who worked with both actors in 1968 (and had to take second billing to both, even though he had probably overtaken them by the time of filming), it was Marvin who registered the effects of alcohol more egregiously, at least on the set if not on the screen. Writes Richard Schickel on pages 217-218 of Clint Eastwood: A Birography about the production of Paint Your Wagon (1969):

The production was now "a ship, literally, with no captain on the deck," as Clint describes it, a condition particularly upsetting to that very queasy sailor Lee Marvin. An alcoholic exactly the opposite of Richard Burton in that he showed the effects of drink almost immediately, he was, as Clint says, a man who needed to know on a daily, perhaps hourly, basis what course they were on. "The minute you said, 'Well, I'm not sure about this or that,' Lee immediately went, 'Pour me a double.'"

In his autobiography, [director Joshua] Logan was still speaking of Marvin as a courtly Southern gentleman, at heart not very different from the director himself, and that, unfortunately, was how he treated him on the set. Only once did he let his true feelings publicly slip, when he told Marvin's biographer, Donald Zec, "Not since Attila the Hun swept across Europe leaving five hundred years of total blackness has there been a man like Lee Marvin."

What Marvin obviously needed, what he had received from other directors when he did his best work, was stern discipline administered by a man's man. To [producer Alan J.] Lerner and to [associate producer] Tom Shaw that suggested Richard Brooks, a literate, tough-minded character, as blunt in conversation as Logan was circumspect, who had a reputation for handling complex productions (among them Elmer Gantry and Lord Jim), and difficult actors (among them Lee Marvin, whom he had directed without incident in The Professionals).

Brooks, who had a powerful collegial feeling for others of his profession, refused to take over the picture.


If not Brooks, then Marvin would have liked Don Siegel, who'd directed him in The Killers (1964). As British film journalist Michael Munn reveals in Clint Eastwood: Hollywood's Loner, page 88:

The problems got worse. Drunk or sober, Marvin kept holding up filming. His problem, he told me, was his lack of confidence in Logan as a movie director.

'Josh Logan has wanted to make the film in the studio and I figured he thought a sound stage was like a theatre stage because that's where he felt comfortable and in control. But he was out there in the middle of Oregon with real people and real wagons and real guns. And there was just a whole buncha crap going on up there. They had Clint Eastwood singing—I mean this big tough guy who usually killed ninety-seven people in each of his films, and he's sitting there playing a guitar and being Elvis Presley and they didn't know what to do with him. And they had all these buildings falling down and it was just lunacy. Or at least, that's how I saw it. Well it was crazy. I got along just fine with Josh in the end but we could have used Richard Brooks [who directed Lee in The Professionals] or Don Siegel.'


As it turned out, Siegel visited Marvin and Eastwood (who had also worked with the director in late 1967 on Coogan's Bluff) on the set of Paint Your Wagon. But by then, Marvin had already lost his focus. Writes Munn on pages 87-88:

Logan was shooting a scene in which Jean Seberg had to gaze into East Eagle Creek where the cool clear water bubbled over the rocks. As the cameras rolled, Marvin, from behind a tree, suddenly roared, 'Stop!'

Jean lept back. 'What's wrong?' she cried.

Marvin staggered forward. 'What's wrong?' he repeated in mock indignation. 'Don't you realize the fish are f!cking in there?'

Seberg burst into laughter. But Logan groaned under his large-brimmed straw hat and hoped that things wouldn't get any worse than this. Marvin, meanwhile, was hoping the same thing about Logan. An earlier choice for the film had been Don Siegel with whom Marvin had made The Killers, and Lee would have preferred to have Siegel direct this film. Logan was predominantly a stage director, and Marvin was nervous of the fact. And the more nervous he became, the more drunk he got. Clint Eastwood began to wonder what he'd got himself into.

One day in the middle of a scene, Marvin said, 'I don't see any point in wasting money here. I'm going fishing.'

Don Siegel came up to the location to visit Clint and Lee Marvin. He told me, 'When I arrived I found that the whole picture had closed down because Lee Marvin was somewhat...unavailable—incapacitated. Everyone was unhappy and I was rushing around telling everyone that everything would be okay, that I'd worked with Lee a lot and that he'd pull himself together and get back to work. Nobody believed me, not surprisingly. But I did prove to be right eventually. Anyway, I went up to Lee's to have breakfast—breakfast with me is something of a sacred ritual. I got there and found he had no food in his house except for one wrinkled old avocado.

'Clint came over to pick me up and Lee started talking gibberish; just sounding off, making no sense at all. I said to Clint, "Do you understand anything he's saying?" Well, Clint couldn’t make it out at all. I said, "Look, I came here for breakfast but there's nothing to eat except this wrinkled avocado. I've had four beers but I need something to eat." Lee just sat there grinning, and I got mad at him so I picked up the avocado and squashed it on his head. Lee burst into laughter, and I began laughing, but Clint thought we'd both gone crazy. As I told Clint, there are moments when one act can be more expressive than dialogue with Lee Marvin.'


What's ironic is that Eastwood agreed to Paint Your Wagon in late 1967 after reading Paddy Chayefsky's "dark, moody" adaptation of Lerner's Broadway book. After he saw Lerner's "fluffy" script re-write some months later in London while working on Where Eagles Dare, Eastwood wanted to exercise his escape clause and leave the project. But by then, pressure poured in to stay, because people were depending on him and the vehicle was in full-gear. Lerner and Logan flew to London to convince Eastwood of the project's continued merits, and the star remained on, however reluctantly. Of course, matters would only spiral downward from there. Writes Schickel of Marvin, page 219:

Overt rebelliousness eventually disappeared and Marvin became something like a scary ghost haunting the production's by-ways, spreading chaos whenever he appeared. Clint credits Michelle Triola, Marvin's longtime companion and eventual intiator of the famous "palimony" action against him, for doing her best to restrict his intake of alcohol, but she could not be everywhere with him. Typically, Clint says, "His stand-in would come over to my trailer and say, 'Lee's going to come by here in about ten or fifteen minutes asking for a beer. Tell him you don't have any.' So I hid all the beer and it became this kind of game all the way."

Except whenever possible Clint chose not to play in it. Logan would later describe Clint as "warm and decent," his words correctly implying that, as much as possible, Clint distanced himself from the on-going hubbub. He did his job and maintained a pleasant, cooperate, but reserved, manner.


That said, not all the blame for Paint Your Wagon should be laid at Marvin's feet by any means. But Marvin, unlike Eastwood, was not someone who could deal with a shaky production, and his collapse made everything else collapse even more forcefully.

reply

"Now what I'd love to learn would be the backstory for that film ... "

Well, from what I read some time ago, the filming of "The Klansman" was a total fiasco. Not only was Burton at rock bottom as far as his alcoholism, Marvin was also putting it away as well, although he could handle liquor better than Burton, who was according to some sources at death's door. In addition, the cast of "The Klansman" also included veteran actor Cameron Mitchell, who was a hard drinker as well and at a low point in his own career which led to his own alcohol problems.

Years ago I read Donald Zec's book about Marvin and remembered the quote from Joshua Logan comparing Marvin to Attila the Hun. I've also read some good stories about Marvin attributed to director John Boorman, who directed Marvin in "Point Blank" and "Hell in the Pacific". One night after filming had finished for the day on the set of "Point Blank", Marvin and Boorman stopped at a bar somewhere in Los Angeles. After downing several drinks Boorman decided to call it an evening and saw Marvin to his car. But unbeknownst to Boorman, Marvin then climbed on top of his station wagon and was hanging on to the luggage rack as Boorman drove down the street. While sitting at a red light, a passerby in another car honked at Boorman and asked him "do you know that Lee Marvin is on top of your car?" The surprised Boorman looked up to see Marvin there and then said to the passerby "yeah, I know."

reply

I've enjoyed all this well-researched anecdotal material about Lee Marvin, Richard Burton, Clint Eastwood and the rest (interesting to recall that all three men worked together with each other at one time or another.)

Thoughts:

"The Klansman" is a terrible, terrible movie, and its shooting in the northern California town of Oroville was just plain weird. Evidently Lee Marvin was so aghast at Burton's drinking that even Marvin couldn't keep up with it on this picture. Meanwhile, Liz Taylor came to Oroville to battle with Burton, who had given a big diamond ring to a local waitress. The director gave up. Burton is drunk in many scenes, perhaps worst in a scene in which he fights a big bully and CANNOT RAISE HIS FISTS to fight. The bully just keeps falling over anyway. To add insult to injury, OJ Simpson is in this movie, as a killer, if I recall correctly.

To repeat, Lee Marvin had just made this film and turned "Jaws" down? Marvin was a big deep sea fisherman and simply said, "I'd rather fish for sharks than act with one." OK, Lee.

"Paint Your Wagon" has a bad reputation, but in certain Northern California cities in 1969/70, that movie played for a year. Gold rush country. They still have sold-out revivals of the movie there.

"Paint Your Wagon" is actually OK as musicals go. Marvin and Eastwood are "covered" by a strong male chorus and one trained singer (Harve Presnell) in singing a fine Lerner and Loewe score, with some "hip" new tunes by Andre Previn. Eastwood could carry a tune...albeit in a soft, mellow voice. Oddly, Lee Marvin's great baritone speaking voice turned into a froggy croak for singing, but he had a top ten hit in "Wandrin' Star" -- again backed by a virile male chorus to help carry the tune. Marvin reprised his "Cat Ballou" drunk act and got some laughs.

Let's recall that Lee Marvin spent some of the 70's mired in the famous "Marvin Palimony Case" versus his live-in-lover of many years.

I saw a TV special on Lee Marvin a few years ago, shot and hosted by John Boorman. Boorman revealed some nice things about Lee: after the palimony case wrapped, Lee eventually found and married his high school sweetheart. They moved to the Southwest (Arizona or New Mexico)...and Lee managed to convince many of his old WWII buddies to move near him with their families. Together, these men would gather at Marvin's home for parties and holidays. After Marvin died, the WWII buddies stayed in the area -- and the survivors still meet regularly at Marvin's house with his wife for parties.


reply

"Paint Your Wagon" has a bad reputation, but in certain Northern California cities in 1969/70, that movie played for a year. Gold rush country. They still have sold-out revivals of the movie there.

Really? That's fascinating. Paint Your Wagon, as a road-showing musical vehicle featuring advanced prices and reserved seating, was indeed a grand hit, grossing $31.7M in North America and returning $14.5M to Paramount in domestic rentals. (Unfortunately, it also cost some $20M to make and Joshua Logan never directed another movie.) Paint Your Wagon actually out-grossed True Grit by a hair and ranked seventh in domestic gross among movies released in 1969; its performance allowed Lee Marvin to remain on the Quigley's Annual Top Ten Money Making Stars Poll through 1971 (he had debuted in 1967).

A couple of other trivia notes: according to singer Eddie Fisher's autobiography Been There, Done That, he had some sort of behind-the-scenes producing role on Paint Your Wagon and pushed for Kim Novak as the female lead, but Paramount ultimately felt that Novak no longer resonated at the box office. Also, in her memoir, Looking for Gatsby, Faye Dunaway writes that Logan offered her the lead role in the aftermath of her Bonnie and Clyde success (obviously, she didn't accept).

To repeat, Lee Marvin had just made this film and turned "Jaws" down? Marvin was a big deep sea fisherman and simply said, "I'd rather fish for sharks than act with one." OK, Lee.

In Marvin's defense, I can see how a veteran actor about to turn 50 might have thought that a movie about a killer shark was juvenile and beneath him. Moreover, there were serious logistical questions with the movie, and no one at that time could have imagined that Steven Spielberg would have made the problems work to his advantage so masterfully. Spielberg was an up-and-coming director, but he hadn't revealed his blockbuster magic prior to Jaws.

PS: For the sake of balance, I'll try to post something on Burton's drinking later in the day.

reply

Too bad Marvin didn't take the role in "Jaws" - I'm guessing it would have been the Robert Shaw role he was offered. And, Spielberg was still a fairly unknown quantity before that film, many established actors hesitated working with young directors.

I remember very well the palimony case Marvin was embroiled in. Went on for about 5 or 6 years and must have really hampered his ability to concentrate on his career. I remember watching on the 6:00 news one night in 1979 that the case had been finally closed. A reporter walked up to Marvin and asked him for his opinion. First of all I noticed Marvin looked about 70 (he was 55 at the time) and appeared to be really, really tired. He glowered at the reporter, as only he could, and just said he was glad it was over and that the verdict was correct, and walked away.

As for Burton, everything I've read about him was that he was a horrific alcoholic who drank himself into coma-like oblivion on a regular basis, having brushes with death on several occasions. I wonder what would cause a man of his talent and success to drink that way, there must be an interesting story behind that.

reply

Too bad Marvin didn't take the role in "Jaws" - I'm guessing it would have been the Robert Shaw role he was offered

---

Yes. Quint.

Lee Marvin was Spielberg's first choice for the role.

Then he offered it to Sterling Hayden, a veteran B-actor who had nonetheless been in some great A-films (The Asphalt Jungle, The Killing, Dr. Strangelove, The Godfather.) Hayden wanted to play Quint, but tax problems kept him in France and out of the US.

Robert Shaw got the role on the recommendation of "Jaws" produers Richard Zanuck and David Brown, who had used Shaw as the villain "The Sting."

In Robert Shaw, Spielberg got that great voice and robust look, but he got something extra: Shaw was an established playwright and helped write his "USS Indianapolis" speech. I doubt Lee Marvin would have made that contribution.

Awaiting joekidd's insights on Burton, what I recall is that he started out as a hard drinking Welsh actor (who could perform entire Shakespeare plays on stage while drunk), and found himself emeshed in THE celebrity scandal marriage of the 60's and 70's: "Liz and Dick" (consisting of one affair, one marriage, one divorce, and a SECOND marriage and divorce. )Evidently, the loss of his "serious actor" mystique to being a box-office "movie star" with Liz helped drove Burton to terrible binges.

In his autobiography, Michael Caine wrote of making a film with Liz Taylor ("X,Y, and Zee") and having Burton drunkenly accost him with all manner of profanity during the shoot.

reply

After a stalwart career as a supporting heavy ("The Big Heat," "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance") Marvin was absolutely huge as a star from about 1965 (with "Cat Ballou" and "Ship of Fools" in the same year) to about 1969 (when the musical "Paint Your Wagon" rather unfairly sunk his reputation).

Marvin holds the distinction of being one of the screen's most dominant tough-guys and one of its most audacious villains, espeically in Westerns such as The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence (John Ford, 1962), The Comancheros (Michael Curtiz, 1960), Seven Men From Now (Budd Boetticher, 1956), and Bad Day at Black Rock (John Sturges, 1955). I have to believe that Marvin's brief yet showy role alongside John Wayne in The Comancheros represented a case of art imitating life.

reply

I think the observation that Marvin's excellent role in "The Comancheros" being art imitating life is a good one. Too bad his role wasn't larger, although still a good film it had slow points after Marvin's appearance.

Other than some of us here, I think it's forgotten just how good an actor Marvin was. I've seen many of his early films from 1952 to 1958, where, always playing heavies, he routinely steals films from more established stars of the period. A good example of that is his appearnace as an asthma-ridden criminal in "Violent Saturday" (1955). Victor Mature was supposedly the star of that film, a decent crime drama not seen too often today. Marvin's performance, in a medium-sized role, blows everybody off the screen. Same thing occurs in "Shack Out on 101" (1955), a cult favorite.

reply

I haven't seen those early Marvin films, but I have seen "The Big Heat" and "Bad Day at Black Rock," and he was compelling in them.

I think Marvin is definitely one of those male actors who had to age into stardom. The young, black-haired Marvin is simply too unappealing a fellow to look at, even if the deep voice was well in evidence and the powerful skill of his acting is in evidence.

It's funny, but it seems that Marvin used small-but-signifcant roles in three John Wayne films of the early 60's to do the final prep for stardom: "The Commancheros" (as noted); "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" (where Marvin is evil personified vs. Wayne and Jaimmy Stewart, yet still charismatic and sly); and the silly John Ford comedy "Donovan's Reef" (doing a drunk act while barroom brawling with Wayne in an almost too-intimate manner).

In all three of those films, Marvin held the screen. You loved him when he showed up, and you hated it when he left (especially the short-lived guy in "The Commancheros" and even the evil Liberty Valance.) THAT's the mark of a star.

In 1964, the prematurely-gray Marvin finally emerged in "The Killers," a violent Don Siegel crime thriller originally intended as "the first made-for-TV-movie" before being deemed too violent and sent out to theaters. Marvin, playing an ice-cold but oddly principled hit man, is one of several leads in "The Killers" (John Cassavetes, Angie Dickison, and Ronald Reagan as a bad guy are there, too) -- but he is easily the most magnetic person on screen. And with the gray hair, his somewhat simian looks now softened into a manly handsomeness. Lee Marvin was ready for stardom. "Cat Ballou" one year later gave it to him (in a part that Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, and Richard Boone turned down first.)





reply

Regarding Burton's drinking:

According to Time critic and Eastwood biographer Richard Schickel, Burton was one of those actors (much like William Holden, yet another alcoholic and Eastwood colleague) who absolutely loathed his profession, devoting many diary pages to his professional contempt. And as someone who had grown up poor, he seemed to harbor a certain sense of insecurity that often manifested itself in an avaricious need for wealth. All these factors, it seemed, ended up pouring out in Burton's relentless alcoholism. Pages 207-209 of Schickel's Clint Eastwood: A Biography:

One gets the impression that, as the production [Where Eagles Dare] inched along, Clint was generous to his costar on-screen and protective of him off-screen. This was his kind of picture, not Burton's, and he was doing what he could to ease his colleague's way. It was, Clint quickly observed, booze, more than the rigors of production, from which Burton needed protection. His capacity for it was, to Clint, amazing. As was his ability, most of the time, to carry it without visible ill-effects—"just one eye sagging a little, but that's about it."

Nevertheless, there were times when alcohol rendered Burton balky. There was, for example, a sequence in which he and Clint, mounted on a motorcycle with a sidecar, are supposed to speed down an icy, twisting road, pausing now and them to affix dynamite sticks to high-tension towers, the plan being to detonate the explosives later on, when they are making their escape. The sequence was scheduled for early afternoon, and Burton appeared weaving slightly and dubiously eyeing the antique motorcycle he was supposed to pilot.

"You can drive this thing, can't you, Richard?" [director] Brian Hutton inquired. Burton replied with an incomprehensible, but not exactly reassuring, mumble. At which point Clint stepped forward. He was a veteran cyclist—at the time he owned two such vehicles—and happily volunteered a role reversal: "I'll tell you what, Brian, I'll drive it and Richard rides."

Relief all around, Hutton now pressed on to outline the rest of the business. Clint would skid to a stop, and Burton would hop out, attach the dynamite sticks (actually balsa wood and, of course, carrying no charges), hop back in, and they would speed off to the next stop (and the next shot).

"I don't handle explosives, Brian," said Burton, now obviously quite out of things.

"What?"

"I don't handle explosives."

"But it's balsa wood, Richard."

The star, woozily intent on asserting his prerogatives, shook his head adamantly.

"And Brian's looking at me like, 'Damn this guy,'" Clint recalls.

So the director manque offered another suggestion: "I say, 'Richard, look, why don't we do this? Just you put this one set of balsa-wood things down here and then there's a hostel down the road. We'll go down there and have a shot, you and I.'"

"Good idea," Burton enthused. "Good idea."

"So I go back to Brian and I say, 'OK. You've got one shot on this, so you better get it.'" This, happily, he did.

Eventually they wrapped in Austria and moved on to studio work in London—much of it fussy rear- and front-screen-projection special effects. There, if anything, Burton spent more time drinking; he had a number of favorite pubs to which he introduced Clint, who could be counted on get him back to the soundstage more or less on time, in more or less functioning condition, for their next call. The indulgences with which Burton was favored are sometimes visible on-screen. There was, for example, a sequence, shot in the studio, in which he and Clint are supposed to be pulling themselves up the castle walls on ropes, hand over hand. Clint is visibly straining as he toils upward, while the older and manifestly less-fit Burton seems to be making the climb effortlessly. But he was posited on a crane and only had to mime his ascent, while Clint had to pull himself up under his own power.

reply

[deleted]

I've heard that Clint was quite the party animal on some occasions but his sense of discipline usually ruled the day. Working on "Where Eagles Dare" with Richard Burton and "Paint Your Wagon" with Lee Marvin consecutively would tax the patience of anyone.

Back to Marvin, it does seem as ecarle points out that his stardom coincided with his hair turning white and making him more appealing to look at. But even in his earliest roles the voice, talent and screen presence are still there. Another early film I forgot to mention is a Western, "Seven Men From Now", where the still dark-haired Marvin turns in a remarkably complex performance. Yes, he was a heavy yet again, but in his hands the character is alternately intelligent, cruel, clever and likable.

Marvin's rise to movie stardom may also have been helped by his starring in the popular TV servies "M-Squad" from 1957 to 1960, which was the reason Marvin appeared in no theatrical releases between 1958 and 1961. He hated the grind of a TV series but credited the show for making him more well-known and to take acting more seriously.

As I've said before, Marvin is an irreplacable actor. If there's anyone today who has his screen persona and skill I'm not aware of it.

reply

Eastwood definitely lacked discipline when it came to women. For example, he and Jean Seberg shared a deeply affectionate affair on the Paint Your Wagon shoot, even though both were married at the time. But of course, that's Hollywood for you. I haven't heard much about Eastwood being a partier (outside of sleeping around), but you might know something that I don't. I have read that Eastwood was extremely focused on the A Fistful of Dollars shoot, usually passing up any socializing activities, heading to his room, going to sleep early, and waking up early to jog a few miles before the day's filming began. On the Italian shoots, he has been described by some as being as cold as the Man with No Name (although his relationships with the other major players, Leone, Van Cleef, and Wallach, were apparently strong). And for a connection to The Professionals: Eastwood spent part of his time in Rome hanging out with Woody Strode.

Eastwood did get along very well with both Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. In fact, on the Where Eagles Dare shoot, Taylor showed him the script for Two Mules for Sister Sara and they agreed to co-star in it. Later on, however, Taylor and the studio ended up in some squabble and the Universal executives opted for Shirley MacLaine instead.

reply

Thanks for all your input, Joekidd. You really made this a fun thread, and the others helped too.

Burton's drinking in "Where Eagles Dare" surprised me, I thought he looked rather fit and energized. But I wasn't paying close enough attention to him on that motorcycle.

Marvin definitely was a screen icon, for my money giving a far more interesting performance than Burt Lancaster in "The Professionals." Odd that he got his Oscar for the one comedy role he ever played, which was like Robin Williams winning for "Good Will Hunting" in reverse.

reply

A few things:

I think the reason that Liz Taylor dropped out of "Two Mules for Sister Sara" (after luring Eastwood into the other lead) was that she wanted it to be filmed in Spain where her husband Richard Burton was working on a film. Because of Burton's drinking and fragile psyche, Taylor wanted to be with him during that time. Universal balked, Liz quit, Shirley MacLaine was hired, and the movie was filmed in Mexico and LA.

"Where Eagles Dare" was rather famous at the time for Eastwood's near-silent performance as an American killing machine of a GI on a mission with nothing but British officers, led by Burton. Quentin Tarantino loved it, particularly the scene where Eastwood "waits for Nazis to congregate in groups at the bottom of the stairs, and blows them away with a machine-gun, until another group arrives and he does the same thing." Also, there's a key scene near the end where Richard Burton must deliver pages of dialogue to "trick" some Nazis -- while Eastwood just stares in disbelief, it seems, at how much Burton must say.

Back to Lee Marvin:

His "Cat Ballou" performance was a comic one (one of the great drunk acts of all time, because he tries to LOOK sober a lot of the time), but perhaps his key scene in that movie is early on, when he first demonstrates his talents to the people who hired him as a gunfighter (Jane Fonda, Michael Callan, et al), and gives a very long (but good) Oscar-bat speech about the old times as a gunfighter and how its all over now. The shaky gunfighter can't hit the side of a barn sober. But after a couple of swigs, Marvin shoots with a sharpshooter's skill -- and then reverts to drunkenness as his pants fall down after he pulls his pistol again. A great scene, funny but serious around the edges.

A year later, Marvin was with Lancaster and indeed stealing the picture from the more established star -- probably because Marvin's "cool" fit the sixties whereas Lancaster was more a star of the fifties.

We don't have anyone really like Lee Marvin anymore because we CAN'T. He was a war hero, a brawler, a drunk -- and he died fairly young from his vices. He became a star at middle-age, and he looked like he LIVED (try to imagine Matt Damon or Mark Wahlberg in a Lee Marvin role.) There's a line in Quentin Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs" when a really tough gangster suddenly says to another tough gangster with whom he has been arguing: "I'll bet you like Lee Marvin movies. Me, too. I love the guy."

Mel Gibson in the 90's made "Payback," a remake of the great Lee Marvin film "Point Blank," about a bullet-ridden gangster on a careful campaign of revenge against the gangsters who cheated him out of his stake in a robbery. Gibson was very good in the movie as just about the coolest, toughest guy he ever played. But Gibson had to ACT the toughness; you could see him doing the work. Lee Marvin in the role originally just WAS tough.

Tough-guy Lee Marvin was actually a rich kid originally. Wealthy family. But that didn't stop him from going to war and leading the life of a street tough.

Burt Reynolds wrote that Marvin was a good friend and mentor to him as a young actor. The struggling young Reynolds met the established character guy Marvin in New York, and Marvin said, "if you're ever in Hollywood, look me up." Reynolds did, and Marvin gave him a small role on his hit TV show "M Squad" in one episode (Marvin himself was evidently hungover during much of the filming of this show.) Years later, Marvin attended a pre-screening of "Deliverance" and told Reynolds afterwards: "You're gonna be a star now, kid. Just be ready to handle it."

Good advice. Too bad Reynolds didn't follow it.


reply

Didn't know that Burt Reynolds got an assist from Lee Marvin - very interesting.

As for Matt Damon or Mark Wahlberg playing a Marvin-like role, Damon's a decent actor, but he's so young looking. Even Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, now both over forty, look much younger than their ages. Look at Marvin when he was Cruise's age - 1967, Point Blank. Quite a difference. The trend for some time now is for leading men to be really youthful-looking. Despite his talent, Marvin might have a hard time becoming a star today.

Recently I saw Clint Eastwood talking abour Budd Boetticher in a documentary. Since Boetticher wrote the script for "Two Mules for Sister Sara", Eastwood was talking about that film and how Liz Taylor was going to star in it with him. His version of the story was that she was enthusiatic about working on the film, but wanted to schedule it around Burton shooting somewhere else (must have beeen Spain as ecarle mentioned), and then Burton wanted her to work only during certain times, etc. This went around and around for awhile, but meanwhile Eastwood and Don Siegel got tired of waiting and got Shirley MacLaine instead. In Eastwood's words, more or less, he said in the Boetticher documentary "I was tired of all that crap (waiting for Liz and Dick to get their act together) and wanted to get going on the picture." So this just provides another example of how Eastwood is an anomaly in the movie business, he doesn't play games, stays focused and gets to work, without all the Hollywood nonsense. And although he was friends with the Burtons, that still wasn't enough reason to work with them.

I saw "Payback" with Mel Gibson - he was good, but the movie wasn't. The story doesn't translate that well to today (or 1999 in that case). I agree, Marvin didn't even have to act in that film. The scene at Carroll O'Connor's house where Angie Dickinson slaps Marvin repeatedly (15 to 20 times) as hard as she can, and Marvin doesn't even flinch, is great.

reply

According to Schickel's biography, Eastwood also suspects that Universal was down on Elizabeth Taylor after the disaster of Boom! and the diaster that it foresaw in Secret Ceremony. In the studio's eyes, Taylor was falling fast, while Shirley MacLaine was supposedly a hot property. As it turned out, her career virtually ground to a halt after Two Mules for Sister Sara, despite the solid box office success of the film.

I was thinking that Two Mules for a Sister Sara perhaps represents Eastwood's (and Siegel's) more cynical, less noble answer to films such as The Magnificent Seven and The Professionals. It too is a "mercenary adventure into Mexico" movie, only Eastwood being Eastwood, he rides alone rather than with a group of men. Of course, he also becomes entangled with and burdened by a whore disguised as a nun.

By the way, ecarle, which parts of the movie did they film in LA?

reply

Which parts filmed in LA?

The interior sets, I thought. Or were those scenes filmed in one of those Mexico City studios?

If so, my apologies.

"Two Mules for Sister Sara" has always seemed a bit compromised as an Eastwood/Siegel movie. I feel it lacks the tightness and edge of the best "Siegelfilms," and that Eastwood's variation here on his bearded poncho-man is oddly compromised by the need to provide an eventual romance with MacLaine (the two aren't terribly well-matched as a couple.) The final battle action seems a bit "sparse." The economical Siegel wasn't really well-suited for epic action.

Good point about "Two Mules" being a loner-variant on "The Professionals" or "The Mag 7." I can't really see Eastwood as part of a team like that.

Apropos of nothing, I think "The Professionals" was based on a book called "A Mule for the Marquesa" or someting like that.



reply

Yeah, Siegel filmed those scenes in Mexico (but not Mexico City) on sets built by producer Marty Rackin. Eastwood, MacLaine, and Siegel all found Rackin's work inadequate.

Two Mules for Sister Sara is a smoother and more visually impressive film than the tonally erratic Coogan's Bluff, but it lacks the earlier movie's thematic intrigue. Both films, although worthwhile, rank a cut below the best of the Siegel-Eastwood collaboration, The Beguiled, Dirty Harry, and Escape from Alcatraz.

I think that Sister Sara is tense and crisp enough in the Siegel tradition, and the final attack on the fort is kinetic and graphically violent. But you're right in that Siegel lacked a sense of grandeur.

You make a notable point about the representation of the Eastwood persona in the film. Part of Eastwood's goal with Siegel was to sexualize his misanthropic persona and introduce it to comedy and romance. In Coogan's Bluff, Eastwood becomes dangerously sexualized, at times treating women misogynistically. In Two Mules for Sister Sara and The Beguiled, Eastwood is entangled, burdened, duped, and ultimately victimized by women, failing to succeed in the male-female psychological warfare. Then, having pushed his persona to the breaking point in The Beguiled and his own Play Misty for Me, Eastwood resurrected it to the hilt in Siegel's Dirty Harry, which essentially dispenses with women. So if Eastwood's persona in Two Mules for Sister Sara seems frustrated somehow, that was the point, to entangle a (more humanistic and naturalistic) version of the Man with No Name with a woman and see what happens. Likewise, although Two Mules for Sister Sara can be connected to earlier outdoor romantic adventures such as The African Queen and Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison, the allusions are merely perfunctory. Siegel and Eastwood harbored no interest in making an earnest romance, instead pushing old-time Hollywood material in a newfangled, cynical, acidic direction. 1950s Western auteur Budd Boetticher, who had developed the story, loathed Sergio Leone and hated the spaghetti-like slant with which Eastwood and Siegel had taken his work. Boetticher had envisioned Two Mules for Sister Sara as an idealistic, mutually redemptive romance where the woman's identity was not hinted at until the very end. Instead, he saw his idea interpreted with a lustful contempt for classical romance, and he was outraged. At the film's Los Angeles premiere in 1970, Botticher sat directly behind Eastwood and Siegel, fuming to himself over what was transpiring on the screen. Essentially, the old and new Hollwyood mentalities had come to a head.

reply

Burton's drinking in "Where Eagles Dare" surprised me, I thought he looked rather fit and energized.

I agree, it seemed to me that Burton was almost liberated and refreshed by the opportunity to work on a not-so-serious action movie. I guess that at that point, he was still able to hide his alcoholism pretty well on screen.

reply

I've read that one reason Burton wanted to make "Where Eagles Dare" is that he had young sons (by a pre-Liz marriage?) who had expressed an interest in seeing dad do an action picture. Star parents doing movies to please their kids is an interesting phenonmenon: what a personal gift! (Another example: Tommy Lee Jones agreed to play Two-Face in "Batman Forever" because his kids wanted to see him in the part.)

Richard Burton was known for being able to do entire memorized Shakespeare plays on stage while drunk. I think Peter O'Toole could, too. These British actors were trained in memorization beyond what most film stars can do. They were almost on "auto-pilot."

Story: James Stewart arrived on the set of "The Flight of the Phoenix" (1966) and opened up his script for a reading with his British stage-trained co-stars. Those men all CLOSED their scripts -- they had the scripts memorized. A cowed but game Stewart spent a couple of days memorizing his script, and then closed his at a reading, gaining the respect of the British actors.

Usually, the bad scene-takes of drunken actors are thrown away; we only see the scenes they got right. But Burton stayed quiet through many "Where Eagles Dare" scenes, probably memorized his long speeches as above...and didn't really LOOK drunk on screen til "The Klansman."

reply

I've read that one reason Burton wanted to make "Where Eagles Dare" is that he had young sons (by a pre-Liz marriage?) who had expressed an interest in seeing dad do an action picture. Star parents doing movies to please their kids is an interesting phenonmenon: what a personal gift! (Another example: Tommy Lee Jones agreed to play Two-Face in "Batman Forever" because his kids wanted to see him in the part.)

Along the same lines, Audrey Hepburn's sons encouraged her to play opposite Sean Connery in Robin and Marian because they wanted to see their mother act with the man whom they knew as James Bond.

reply

Another Professionals note: in addition to hanging out with Woody Strode in Italy, Eastwood also spent time with Robert Ryan. And then of course, he worked with Lee Marvin a couple years later.

reply

"....it seemed to me that Burton was almost liberated and refreshed by the opportunity to work on a not-so-serious action movie. I guess that at that point, he was still able to hide his alcoholism pretty well on screen."

I would guess that Burton would welcome the opportunity to not work with his wife in a film, since most of what they did together was trashed by the critics ("Who's Afraid of Viginia Woolf" was an excpetion). Their acting styles mixed like oil and water.

Burton came off very well in "Where Eagles Dare"; he looked good, with no traces of alcoholism, and his acting was solid.

"Another Professionals note: in addition to hanging out with Woody Strode in Italy, Eastwood also spent time with Robert Ryan. And then of course, he worked with Lee Marvin a couple years later."

Eastwood must have learned quite a lot from Strode and Ryan, both outstanding actors in Westerns. Too bad he didn't work with Lee Marvin in a dramatic Western, where both of them would have displayed their unique talents. Eastwood could have played an incorruptible lawman, and Marvin one of his patented villains (but not over the top as he was in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance").

reply

Too bad he didn't work with Lee Marvin in a dramatic Western, where both of them would have displayed their unique talents. Eastwood could have played an incorruptible lawman, and Marvin one of his patented villains (but not over the top as he was in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance").

Yes, it's a bit ironic (and unfortunate) that their one film together failed to display either man's legendary assets. A real Western pitting the two actors in an archetypal duel could have been a classic, especially with Don Siegel (a friend of both stars and someone who knew how to handle the alcoholic Marvin) as the director. It could have comprised the situation that you mentioned, or Eastwood could have been a bounty hunter tracking the outlaw Marvin for personal profit, or the two could have been former ranching partners (or brothers) who fall out and end up in a brutal range war.

reply

I've never posted to an IMDB thread but I can't resist this one as I am a huge fan of The Mag 7, Professionals, and The Bunch, Liberty Valence, The Comancheros and some others mentioned here (definately not Paint Your Wagon). The character Tully Crow that Lee Marvin played in the Comancheros might not be loved as much if we had more of him. It's the old show biz thing of leave your audience wanting more. The performance was great! As Marvin says in the film, "...real inspitorial". Stuart Whitman also delivered a great set up for one Marvin's best deliveries ever with the lines, "The trouble with you is you don't enjoy the game (poker) for its own rewards, stimulation, relaxation, pleasent association, and the interesting conversation." What actor today could deliver, "Shut yer mouth" quite the way Lee Marvin did without even a flintch? I recently saw (again) the original "Cape Fear" and then ran into Scorcese's remake right afterward. As great an actor as DiNiro is he is a smart alecky dwarf not even a little bit menacing compared to Robert Mitchim. In years past I thought it might be cool if someone remade "Red River" There was a TV attemt with Jim Arness but yechhh. The first hurtle would be casting. Let's see... Harrison Ford as Thomas Dunson and Tom Cruise as Matthew Garth was the best I could come up with and they still wouldn't hold a candle. Then there's script writing. Today, since there are no restrictions, who could write such great lines as, "Ya know, there's only two things in the world more beautiful than a good gun, a Swiss watch or a woman from anywhere. Ever had a good... Swiss watch"? Who could say it? Matthew McConnehy (sp?)(who cares anyway)? Vin Deisel? The deaths of Pike, Dutch, and the Gortches (sp?) was also the death of the American western. No offence as Joe Kidd came later but even Louis Chama was no match for Chewy Medina.

reply

Not that it was a great film, but Lee Marvin's death scene in "RAINTREE COUNTY" is it's(to me) most memorable moment.

reply

Bumped.

reply

To add to the Marvin legend of unbridled abuse of alcohol, one of the last scenes of Dirty Dozen was being shot. It was the scene where Marvin, Bronson and company were exiting the burning chateau in a weapons carrier. Producer Kenneth Hyman recalled that Marvin was nowhere to be found so Hyman took a chance and checked out one of Lee's favorite watering holes. He found Lee "hanging on at the end of the bar apparently as drunk as a skunk".
Hyman pours coffee down his gullet and gets him to the set where they meet Bronson who has been waiting to finish his role and leave for home. "We pulled in and Lee sort of fell out of the car. Charlie says, "I'm going to *beep* kill you Lee!" And I go through my routine; "Don't hit him Charlie - Don't punch him".
Marvin drove the carrier out, shifting gears while pretending to be wounded but probably couldn't remember his name.
I also read somewhere that during Professionals, he received a knock on his trailer door for a call to set at 11:00 am, but was so smashed that he poured out of the door.
Being of Irish descent, I both applaud his determination to consume spirits but deplore his intent to leave none for anyone else.

We deal in lead, friend.

reply

What a fabulously informative thread. Thanks to all for your outstanding contributions.

reply

Thanks for reading!

reply

bump.

reply

Nice article, as always.

Nothing to add really... one can't go wrong with four top-notch actors, with Jack Palance and the gorgeous Claudia Cardinale (who was a part of a pretty damn good western a few years later in Once Upon a Time in the West) to add to the cast.

It feels like ages since I've seen this film. Time for a revisit!

"Now what kind of man are YOU dude?"

reply

I remember reading that Richard Brooks[actress Jean Simmons' husband], recalled how Marvin actually felt very much at ease in playing the GROUP LEADER and having his on-screen character give orders to Lancaster's Dolworth...Anyhow, Lancaster and Marvin were one of the all-time best on-screen match-ups. Terrific on-screen chemistry. Brooks could have made Palance's Raza more formidable than he did...Mr. Palance, if left to his own devices had a penchant for leaning toward the eccentric...But if properly directed, he could be an on-screen force to be reckoned with. The erstwhile Robert Ryan was wasted in his role. Mr. Brooks could have given that to another less iconic actor...Some anachronisms included Lancaster's character relating the Big Bang theory and one of Palance's henchmen stating that "smoking was bad for the health"...The story was set in 1917...Such things weren't known then. Maybe off-topic but Lancaster, Marvin, and Ryan were of Irish descent while Palance was of pure Ukrainian descent.

reply

Since I wasn't there, I'm always willing to collect "contra" opinions to one's I have read elsewhere. And you have to figure Brooks would know.

If Lee Marvin was actually at ease ordering Lancaster around...seems OK to me. He certainly played it well. I actually have more trouble believing he had trouble.

Still, Burt Lancaster had been a star for quite some time and Lee Marvin had been a "supporting player" for much of his career pre-Professionals. It must have been tricky. (Have I already mentioned in this thread that some of the print ads for "The Professionals" list ONLY Burt Lancaster above the title, with Lee consigned down below?

---

Great point about Jack Palance leaning towards the eccentric. I recently saw an old "Man from UNCLE" from 1966(the same year as "The Professionals") and Palance's performance as a Mafia-like spymaster was just plain weird. He didn't seem able to read a simple line without sounding like he was crazed, strangling on the verbiage. I expect Palance didn't feel much constrained on a "mere TV show." In "The Professionals," he certainly tamps it down a bit.

Robert Ryan was wonderfully empathetic in this movie(and then in "The Wild Bunch," too) and Woody's commanding, and Claudia's va-va-VOOM, and Palance is under control, and Ralph Bellamy is surprisingly acid, but...

...its the Burt and Lee buddy act. All the way. Straight down the line.

reply

Film director Richard Brooks had stated that Lancaster had assumed he would be playing the leader[i.e. Fardan] but Brooks had other ideas. Brooks had stated to Burt that when he usually played the straight-forward type, he was BORING. Brooks had Burt in mind for the Bill Dolworth part all along. It was a good thing Lancaster agreed with Brooks and respected him enough to take on the role of the dynamiter and made Dolworth all his own...

Burt, of course, was rumored to be a nightmare to work with for some directors because he loved to argue and was very headstrong...Wanted things done his way. Luchino Visconti was on record to have stated that Lancaster was both "mysterious and stupid"...Burt's co-star Jeanne Moreau stated that when Burt had a scene which required him to pick up an ashtray, he would discuss his motivation for picking it up for a couple hours...It exasperated her so much where she felt like saying to Burt, "just pick up the damn ashtray!"

As for Lee, Ms. Moreau stated that she thought Lee Marvin was the most manly actor she ever worked with...

reply

Interesting insights!

reply

And this thread has so many great comments (from some we haven't heard from in awhile) that its time...for a bump.

reply

3 years more on...bump.

reply

4 year bump.

reply