Murray Head

I sort of agree with you, but I think Thomson has a point as well. Even if unintentional, the fact that his character or performance isn't as gripping as Glenda's and Finch's just makes it more intriguing, since we don't always love those who deserve us.

"I did cramps the way Meryl Streep did accents" - Calliope (Middlesex)

[deleted]

Yes--both the actor and his character weren't up to Finch & Jackson. What did they see in him?--Jackson seemed too intelligent to stay in that situation. But I know people do get in bad relationships. But there was a scene where Jackson actually apologizes to him for complaining--and his response was something like.."you're a silly girl", which is lousy response to an apology. If I were Jackson, I would've walked out then. Jackson never looked better in this movie. What a great face.

He wasn't bad for if he were, the impact of the story would have been diminished, especially as he is going up against Jackson and Finch. Yes, I found his acting a little 'bland' but so was the character he was playing. He did a pretty good job. Not great, but he emoted adequately enough about his character.

That can't have been David Thomson who said that. In his book 'Have you seen...? he says he can't remember what Head looked like.

I understand what some later posters have said about Head being a canvass that the other two projected on but feel this is revisionist thinking. OK, as written the part is the least interesting of the three main roles but a better actor could have elevated this. The director himself, who gave Murray Head a hard time when shooting, later regretted casting him, even blaming him for the film's box-office failure, saying Head "is a personality more than rather than an actor" and that "I think some people who didn't like it couldn't understand the predicament. If they had found the boy interesting and entertaining, perhaps they would have understood it more". He also blamed the screenwriter. Though to be fair he also said that "people do waste time over the most unlikely people whom others deem to be valueless but in whom they have found something they need or want" and Glenda Jackson said she thought he was "quite good".

Although Schlesinger may have blamed MH for the box-office failure, I think his somewhat underwhelming and bland performance actually served the film quite well.
MH's Bob was a blank canvass upon which Daniel & Alex projected. Bob was ordinary, not special; attractive, not gorgeous; a mediocre artist; amusing at times, but unreliable and self centered. Bob was a younger guy without attachments who wanted to be free to do this own thang. Daniel & Alex wanted relationships, but Bob did not, so they chose the wrong partner.
Thus, the fact that Daniel & Alex were so hooked on Bob emphasized the void in each of their lives. At the end of the film, I wondered whether Daniel & Alex would fix themselves, so that neither felt that they couldn't get more than a half loaf.
Perhaps a stronger actor would have turned Bob into a likable cad, which might have detracted focus on Daniel & Alex's own emotional voids.
I think the film's box-office failure was probably due to the bisexuality, not MH's performance. I think SBS was about 40 years ahead of it's time, so mainstream audiences weren't ready for it.

(I've made a few posts on this board, but the ones I've made so far today all happen to concern Bob's callowness and self-centredness.)

It's been a while since I've seen the Criterion edition of the film, but I seem to remember that, somewhere in the extras, there's a mention that Murray Head, on reading the script, expressed amazement that anyone could love his character. I thought that he played Bob just right, clever and immature and fickle, emphasizing the contrast between his character and those of that character's more mature and self-aware lovers.