MovieChat Forums > Save the Tiger (1973) Discussion > The Jack Gilford Character (potential sp...

The Jack Gilford Character (potential spoilers)

posted 15 years ago by lhill-6
6 replies | jump to latest

I first saw this movie when it came out. Jack Lemmon was making the Talk Show rounds promoting not only the movie but interest in his getting the Oscar. Well, he got the Oscar and good for him. He deserved it.

I have seen it a few times since, and one thing stands out: Harry's partner - Phil - played by Jack Gilford. It seemed he fell into a black hole...the character. For a while he was the moral conscience contrasting the cynicism of Harry. But, in the final scene when the deal for arson is finally struck, Phil sits in the theater saying nothing. Much credit goes to Gilford for showing his emotions only in his face, but that is not enough to help us understand his feelings about the arson in the end. We know, sort of, what happened to Harry Stoner, but we don't know what was in the head of his partner, Phil.

Any Thoughts?

And kudos to Jack Gilford for a GREAT performance!

[–] kag2-1 15 years ago

I agree, Jack Gilford was excellent as Jack Lemon's (Harry Stoner's) morally conscious righ-hand-man Phil Greene. But when Stoner asked, "you want to find another job at your age?," it was quite persuasive. Phil Greene was over age 60 with probably little saved, and thus in deep enough that ultimately he couldn't or wouldn't act to stop Stoner (and thus himself) from using the arsonist. Phil was violating his principles and appeared to hate himself for doing so, but he went along with it.

[–] roigjoven 14 years ago

nice turn by "madeline lee" (gilford) iack's wife and a veteran performer - as the receptionist.

it would be hard to think of an actor whose career suffered as much from what he called "the bad time" (being blacklisted at the height of his career) but kudos for his character in not being bitter - worked with robbins in forum for that matter - always a sunny attitude focused on the future.

and eleven clios i think it was for the crackerjack ads, that also used blacklisted actors such as john carradine (in the one where they played witches). trivia: jack never actually ate the crackerjacks in the ads, he palmed them and chewed nothing - his dentist warned him that crackerjacks were bad for his teeth.

knowing his son sam, walked around the city, theatre district, village with him on many occasions, hard to think of a more beloved "New York" actor/comic, everyone wanted to say "hi" and remembered him from forum, cabaret, sly fox, etc.

too bad there can't be a law assessing all the comics who lived off copping his bits - naming no names - two of his best were a florescent light turning on and a pot of oatmeal coming to a boil. he had a fantastic imagination - who else would have even thought of those kinds of non-human impersonations - and his one-man-shows at town hall, reprising sholem aleichem asking god for a roll and a bit of butter - acting 101 for anyone interested in low-key sincerity, never maudlin or over the top.

as for the ending, wish steven shagan could weigh in, this must have been one of his first writing credits. undoubtedly a minor masterpiece.

"i've been around the world in a plane..."

[–] ibbi 12 years ago

I think he know what was in his head. That he was resigned to the inevitability of all he had been in protest too. He wasn't going to join in, but he could no longer make the effort to try and stop it from happening.

___
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb74/iyb/dacrew.jpg

[–] josephturner1975 11 years ago

Remember early in the movie Phil tells Harry he wants Pastrami for lunch and Harry wants to go for Chinese food. Phil tries to stand firm and be tough with Harry, but in the next scene they are eating in the Chinese restaurant. I think Phil just couldn't stand up to Harry when Harry made up his mind.

I also agree that there weren't many alternatives and eventually the logic of the situation (going to mob for money not a good idea, going bankrupt and at best having to look for a new job and at worst going to prison for fraud) won him over too.

I also wondered when watching this film what Phil did with HIS money. Assuming they were equal (or nearly so) partners, Phil should be as rich as Harry. Harry's living the high life (house in Beverly Hill with a maid, Lincoln Continental, Italian Suit, Phone in Car, daughter in Swiss private school, etc). What's Phil spending his half of the money on? Why isn't Phil rich enough to quit the business and go fishing now? I got the impression he lived very conservatively.

Almost seems like they could have borrowed money from Phil to tide them over. He must have been loaded.

[–] kag2 11 years ago

Perhaps Phil had some situation that left him short financially, such as a sick mom in a nursing home, or a gambling habit, or bad investments, etc.

But maybe Phil merely feared being put out to pasture at age 60+ (with the difficulties of getting hired elsewhere), coupled with memories of the hard times of the Great Depression of the 1930's. Maybe all that added up emotionally to the point where he (unhappily) sacrificed his scruples and sense of honor.

And yes, he was almost as good in his role as Lemmon.

[–] Foster (876) 5 months ago

Well Gilford DID get the Best Supporting Actor nomination BUT did not win (As He Should have, Playing a roll so entirely different than any other he'd done, and so well)

I think at the end, He's resigned himself to Harrys plan and was more interested in the X Rated flick they were showing in the X rated movie theater they were at