Why didn't this film boost his film career? It's a magnificent performance but one of the last 'big' films he made. How come he wasn't offered more good roles after proving beyond doubt that he could be a fine dramatic actor? He didn't even get an Oscar nomination, was it because the movie was regarded as being too controversial?
Yup, this was Curtis' best performance. But i think he had his marijuana conviction right around that time and that pretty much wrecked his career.
shareHis marijuana "conviction" didn't wreck his career. At that time, it would have gained him more fans! I followed Curtis' career at the time and wasn't even aware of his "conviction."
After BOSTON STRANGLER, he went right back to making lightweight comedies, like THOSE DARING YOUNG MEN... and SUPPOSE THEY GAVE A WAR... and then TV work. I don't know why he didn't capitalize on the critical acclaim he got for working against type in this film. He could have had a much more substantial career in the 1970s doing edgier work in counterculture films and with new directors. Guys like Burt Lancaster and Robert Mitchum stayed relevant in the 1970s and impressed younger audiences. Not sure why Curtis didn't do that. Personal demons, maybe?
It is definitely his best performance IMO. I want to track down an episode of 'Backstory' from 2001 which covers this movie. To perhaps find out more about Tony Curtis's portrayal of the Strangler.
shareThe controversy probably played a role;kind of the reverse effect of something today like 'JOKER' or 'MONSTER'.
share