MovieChat Forums > What's Up, Doc? (1972) Discussion > Hysterical and fantastic movie, but Ryan...

Hysterical and fantastic movie, but Ryan O'Neal, arggh...


I've enjoyed this movie for almost 40 years now, but with each time I re-watch it, I find Ryan O'Neal's performance more and more painful. He was a fine dramatic actor, but just not right for comedy. Especially in the courtroom scene when he's trying to explain everything to the judge, Liam Dunn as Judge Maxwell just absolutely leaves him in the dust where it comes to delivery and timing. Streisand was wonderful. Everybody else was very good to excellent. But Ryan... Ouch. He's certainly no Johnny Galecki or Ben Stiller when it comes to playing the flustered hapless nerd. Is it any wonder he never got many roles in comedies?

Everything and everyone else in the movie is great. Any chance we can get a 40th anniversary edition with a CGI character replacing O'Neal, or maybe a new actor - a real comedic actor - matted in?

reply

While I agree that he wasn't all that funny in What's Up Doc, I thought he was funny in Paper Moon and Irreconcilable Differences, so I wouldn't condemn his comedic ability as much as you.

reply

Ryan O'neal was great in this movie. He wasn't supposed to be funny, he was the serious one who all those around him were crazy.

reply

I know what a straight man is. Bud Abbott was a good straight man. Dean Martin was decent. O'Neal wasn't a good straight man here.

reply

I strongly suggest you watch the aforementioned Johnny Galecki in The Big Bang Theory. He portrays the lone point of sanity at the center of a maelstrom much better than O'Neal. Nobody ever said a character can't be serious and funny at the same time. For the best example of O'Neal's failure, look at the scene where Streisand's character is schmoozing with everyone at the conference in the ballroom and he looks straight into the camera and says, "Help." There is absolutely no sense of desperation there. No sense of any real emotion at all.

reply

Aaaw... I always kind'a liked that subtle 'Help'.

reply

Hmmm... speaking of "autistic savant[s] like Rain Man who can't read human emotions":

For the best example of O'Neal's failure, look at the scene where Streisand's character is schmoozing with everyone at the conference in the ballroom and he looks straight into the camera and says, "Help." There is absolutely no sense of desperation there. No sense of any real emotion at all.


I watched that again, and I absolutely disagree. There IS a real sense of desperation, mixed with helpless resignation. The relative quietness of his "Help..." does not indicate lack of emotion. In fact, it makes the line funnier.

But it's obvious that some people out there are just not going to "get" this movie's sense of humor. Too bad for them!

reply

But it's obvious that some people out there are just not going to "get" this movie's sense of humor. Too bad for them!


It's obvious that some people just can't read. Too bad for you. What does the thread title say? I really like the movie and "get" it. Doesn't mean I have to be completely blind to its one big flaw.

reply

OK, let's clarify it just slightly: "But it's obvious that some people out there are just not going to 'get' certain elements of this movie's sense of humor-- specifically, its comic use of Ryan O'Neal." Happy now? Nah, didn't think so.

reply

If I didn´t know better, I´d just assume he was scared stiff by the spooky presence of this Streisand woman. But, yeah, he ain´t no Cary Grant, that´s for sure.


"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

He's charming enough and as Judy says he "looks cute in his pajamas."
I think this is the only thing O'Neal is good in.

reply

I think this is the only thing O'Neal is good in.


Oh no, I don't agree. I haven't seen a lot of his movies, but Barry Lyndon and Paper Moon, at the very least, have good performances by O'Neal. Completely different styles of movies, though.



You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

He definitely brings the movie down. Streisand is sensational though.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

reply

I'm not a huge fan of Mr. O'Neal; but I think he's quite wonderful in this. Cary Grant, Henry Fonda...they weren't particularly funny in their roles as "straight man". They were just better actors. Can you name a male star from 1972 that you think would've been better or funnier than O'Neal? The point is that he's a nerd who's also a hunk. The brilliant women and genius comics just bounce off of him while he dead-pans. Handsomely.

reply

Off the top of my head, I would think Woody Allen in that era could have done the role better.

Actually, I was just thinking about this as I was rewatching the latest episode of The Big Bang Theory just this afternoon. I imagined Johnny Galecki in the courtroom scene and tried to figure out how he would have played it differently. O'Neill played it pretty much as a powerless schmuck who didn't really have any understanding of what was happening around him. He seemed as insane as everybody else, but in a really boring, bland kind of way. Galecki would have played it with the air of someone who knew what was happening but wasn't in control of the situation. O'Neill's character didn't understand how ridiculous he sounded and just prattled on and on, not reacting to the judge's puzzlement. Galecki in the role would have known how crazy his explanation sounded and would have become more embarrassed as he continued. You could almost imagine him slouching more and more as he explains until he finishes with a somewhat frightened look on his face of "Oh boy, he's never going to believe that and I'm going to jail." I'd be able to sympathize with him whereas I just wanted to grab O'Neill and scream, "Are you some kind of autistic savant like Rain Man who can't read human emotions?"

reply

Well, I love Johnny Galecki; but he wasn't even sperm for another couple of years, so he doesn't count. Besides, he's too short. The comic frisson of the screwball straight man is that he is ridiculously Tall, Dark, and Handsome. Woody Allen would've been totally wrong. Burt Reynolds probably could've pulled it off. O'Neal can be very wooden, or distracted...like you get the feeling he'd rather be anyplace else other than the movie he's in. The only time I ever felt he really came to life was in "Paper Moon".

reply

...I find Ryan O'Neal's performance more and more painful. He was a fine dramatic actor, but just not right for comedy. Especially in the courtroom scene when he's trying to explain everything to the judge, Liam Dunn as Judge Maxwell just absolutely leaves him in the dust where it comes to delivery and timing.


He's supposed to! The point of the courtroom scene is to show Dunn's reactions to what everyone is saying-- so the scene depends on his comic timing much more than anyone else's. It's a showcase for that. His pauses are the key. And I think O'Neal does his part quite well. In fact I was admiring his performance in the courtroom scene just before reading this thread.

O'Neill's character didn't understand how ridiculous he sounded and just prattled on and on, not reacting to the judge's puzzlement... I just wanted to grab O'Neill and scream, "Are you some kind of autistic savant like Rain Man who can't read human emotions?"


Hello? That's what makes it funny! All of the details that Howard (O'Neal) recites to the judge are accurate and factual-- but to the judge, hearing them out of context, it just sounds crazier and crazier. That disconnect is the whole comic point. Howard is thinking, "Maybe if I just tell everything I know, it will sound reasonable to SOMEONE. That's my last hope!" His duty before the judge is to make sense of everything that happened-- and he's trying to understand it himself-- so he has to just keep going, regardless of how much the judge can comprehend. Again, THAT'S THE POINT. He's trying to be logical, the judge is trying to be logical, and yet it all falls apart. A movie like this is driven by misunderstandings and obliviousness and the way people get themselves into trouble as a result. If every character was perfectly perceptive at all times, where would the comedy be?

reply




There should be some sort of Godwin's Law on IMDB for people who say other viewers don't "get" a movie. There are few things I find more annoying than being told I don't understand something just because I don't like it!

I'm not talking about WUD - I absolutely adore this movie and disagree vehemently with the OP, but the poster above irked me with that "you just don't get it" comment. I'm sure even Bogdanovich would say there's nothing to get - it's a screwball, slapstick comedy!

As for O'Neal, I think he was perfect. When I first saw it in the Seventies, I thought he was hysterical - now I think MOST of the performances have dated (Streisand's "kookiness" is way off the grid) but you make allowances. When I watch something from the 30s or 40s I make allowances for the woodennness and staginess, and can still appreciate the genius. Similarly here - subconsciously you're telling yourself "it was the early Seventies, that's why they're acting that way and wearing those clothes".

Even making those allowances, O'Neal is subtle and restrained, in my opinion. Woody Allen is mentioned above - I think he would have been terrible. It would have been a totally different character. Whatever you think of O'Neal, Allen is a rotten actor. Very funny, but a rotten actor.



I'm a Prick With a Fork.

reply

I don't mean to belabor this forever-- oh, Rudy Giuliani probably just said, "Why stop now?"-- but, let's face it, "not-getting" does happen all over the world, all the time. We all do it somewhere or another, and we may feel annoyed when someone says we're doing it, but does that mean it should never be mentioned when it happens?

I never said the poster didn't understand something "just because [they] don't like it". I wouldn't even have bothered going on about it, except that the supposed problem-- "O'Neal's character didn't understand how ridiculous he sounded and just prattled on and on, not reacting to the judge's puzzlement"-- was deliberately written to be the central joke of that interaction between the two characters. So in this case I thought it was kind of a relevant thing to mention. Ahh, forget it, never mind.

reply

I think he's very good in it. His bemusement at the crazy things happening around him is perfectly done. I certainly don't think anyone else could have done it better. And as for Woody allen - good grief, no, he wouldn't have been at all suitable. He specialises in angst ridden neurotics, not at all what is wanted here.

reply