He seems uncomfortable and a complete rookie in 'The Frisco Kid', but this movie was filmed AFTER 'Star Wars', in which he seemed pretty competent. It almost seems like he's regressed in the two years between the films. Han Solo was pretty much a cowboy, and a pretty similar character to Ford's char in 'Frisco Kid'; does anyone else think he didn't do as good an acting job here as he did in 'Star Wars'?
shareI agree, although I don't think that's necessarily Ford's fault. He wasn't given a character with much depth in this film, and some of his lines were pretty pathetic. I would blame it on the writer.
shareI feel that an actor is only as good as the director of the movie. Ive seen sub par actors turn in a great performance and great actors look like fools in bad movies. An example would be Sean Astin who was great in Goonies, horrid in Toy Soldiers and totally under rated in The Lord of the Rings as Sam Wise. Same can be said for Ford in this movie. He wasnt bad in it but the director seemed too busy making sure Wilder looked great and forgot about the rest of the cast. Ford was fortunately a good enough actor to make up the difference with the talent he has.
share"He seems uncomfortable and a complete rookie in 'The Frisco Kid', but this movie was filmed AFTER 'Star Wars', in which he seemed pretty competent. It almost seems like he's regressed in the two years between the films. Han Solo was pretty much a cowboy, and a pretty similar character to Ford's char in 'Frisco Kid'; does anyone else think he didn't do as good an acting job here as he did in 'Star Wars'? "
You have to remember that in this film he was playing a cowboy that was a crack shot, but lost (spiritually) and that was a key part of the role.
In Star Wars, he plays the tough guy, cocky, arrogant smuggler with an ego the size of the millenium falcon.
I think that this role required a more subtle approach.
He can't be han solo in everything!
he did a pretty good job, imho, because his character seemed to be a reluctant tough guy that would rather do a job, then dissapear for a while.
Han Solo was more of a do a job, then find another.
I liked Harrison in this movie. That may not count, as I like him in most movies, with the exception of Hollywood Homocide, which was a rotten film! But I did like him in this movie, because in most of his movies, he's got this really though guy, almost grumpy attitude, and it was so refreshing to see him as someone joyful. I know he can be goofy, but this is the only time I've seen him as a genuinly joyful character, and he's slightly naive. I enjoyed seeing that side of him, as he doesn't display it all to often.
shareI thought he was terrific in this movie. Great chemistry with Wilder to boot. Between the two of them, this film was transformed from a good movie to a great movie in my opinion.
Yes, I agree. Harrison Ford and Gene Wilder had good chemistry and worked well together. But I also blame teh writers for the lack of character, he didn't have much to work with but did his best with what he had.
But whats with that one scene where he and gene Wilder are running on the beach in their long johns, giggling and rolling over eachother? That felt uncomfortable for me, and I was only watchign it...
It seems to me he was still struggling with a signature "persona", if you see him in Apocalypse Now even later, he seems even more wooden, and it may have been a conscious decision to be so.
But I agree, great chemistry and warmth, and the relationship was great, and not homoerotic as suggested, but devoid of that artifice through the portrayal of their exuberance upon finishing a long journey.
"But whats with that one scene where he and Gene Wilder are running on the beach in their long johns, giggling and rolling over each other? That felt uncomfortable for me, and I was only watching it..."
It's a sad commentary on our society when men show a playful, intimate side to friendship and it is taken in a homosexual context.
That scene had absolutely nothing to do with sexuality. It was about kinship and camraderie.
Perhaps you were uncomfortable because you believe that men are not able to be or capable of a level of friendship that is intimatte without being sexual. Men can love each other without having sex, just like women can have close friends without having sexual intimacy.
Find your own beliefs and stop letting others dictate your thoughts.
His worst film has never been released because of the subject matter; a remake of "Come Dance the Night" written by Hecubah Gomer and Jerry Weintraub.
Nothing exists more beautifully than nothing.
I think he played a good character, Ford was already a well established character actor at this point, playing great roles in The Conversaion and American Grafiti. I think his acting was more subtle, but its suppose to be more of a straight character to Wilders craziness fish out of water.
shareThis was a weird time in Ford's career.
He'd come out of "Star Wars" as Most Likely to Become a Movie Star, because he'd played the tough guy to Mark Hamill's more boyish teen heartthrob hero. Around the same time, the same thing happened with Nick Nolte, the tough guy of the two brothers in "Rich Man, Poor Man." (The "rich man," pleasant Peter Strauss, got a TV star career instead.)
With his "Star Wars" heat, Ford was cast pretty quickly in movies like "Force Ten From Navarone," this one, and the WWII love story, "Hanover Square." Problem was, none of them, including this one, were as "big" as "Star Wars" and Ford seemed to be thrashing about. None of them were terribly well-written, either, though "Frisco Kid" was the best of the bunch. (Also around the time of "Star Wars," Ford beautifully played a small part as a damaged Vietnam Vet in a Henry Winkler vehicle, "Heroes.")
One of the big "what if" questions in the Harrison Ford career is: "What if he didn't get 'Raiders of the Lost Ark.'?" It is well-known that Tom Selleck was offered that role first, but had to back out over "Magnum,P.I." Once Ford played Indiana Jones -- pretty much getting the movie to himself as a star after sharing "Star Wars" with others -- Ford seemed to grow new confidence as a leading man, and he got better vehicles: "Blade Runner" and "Witness" for a start. Without "Raiders," Ford might have failed and faded out in the early 80's in lesser movies.
None of this is to downgrade the nifty "Frisco Kid" too much, but it does seem a lesson to me: "Star Wars" made Harrison Ford a star, but "Raiders of the Lost Ark" KEPT him a star. "Frisco Kid" is from those dangerous years in between.
Have you noticed that Ford NEVER talks about the Frisco Kid in interviews? Something about this film was so painful/atrocious/annoying that he never mentions the experience anywhere!
What in the world was going on on that set? Wilder's character is a classic. Ford's straight-man routine is great and has some funny lines. What about it has soured him in the decades since. Apparently, whatever it is is pretty deep-seated.
You all bring up interesting points but as a longtime Harrison Ford fan, this is the reason he seemed somewhat uncomfortable in the role. The Cowboy part had originally been written for John Wayne and when they couldn't get Wayne, director Robert Aldrich settled for Harrison Ford. There was some tension on the film because Aldrich kept making comments about Ford that he was no John Wayne. As an independent filmmaker myself, that is something you never say to an actor. Actors need all the confidence in the world from their director. That's why he never really spoke about the film throughout his career. He hardly spoke about Blade Runner too because he and Ridley Scott never got on during production.
www.lcafilms.com
[deleted]
the restaurant scene is the best thing in the film. it's almost a little bit sad, but very sweet.
as far as harrison not being john wayne... harrison is harrison, a legend who is just as famous, imo, as john wayne, and for being his own distinct personality.
i actually like seeing this slightly more innocent, sweet side of him in frisco kid that you don't see as much in a lot of his roles. he often plays jaded, but in frisco he actually pulled off almost a bit of innocence. the only other scenes i can think of in his career that came off nearly that emotional would be the dead marion/drinking scene, the scenes surrounding the carbonite incident and perhaps the very young ford limping away from the overturned car in american graffiti--sort of the wounded pride walk.
i remember watching dynasty (old tv movie with him in a bit part at the end of it), and almost dying from laughter when the mother was telling her son, played by harrison, that he was too naive and nice, and would never be emotionally strong enough to be, basically, a backstabbing soap character (seriously). it just didn't fit harrison at all--though it might have worked for people who hadn't seen his entire career-worth of films that make his hard-ass persona very clear. that dinner scene in frisco kid was one of the closest moments to him pulling off that level of tenderness and youth.
"Have you noticed that Ford NEVER talks about the Frisco Kid in interviews? Something about this film was so painful/atrocious/annoying that he never mentions the experience anywhere!"
That's probably true jfulbright but I don't think it was as painful as the 1978 Star Wars Holiday Special, Hollywood Homicide, and Firewall. lol. This isn't the best of his movies but not the worst either.
I heard from some very avid Ford fans about the time the movie came out, that Ford was very unhappy with the way the film was edited. The scene he considered his best was cut from the film without his knowledge, and he was quite disappointed when he saw the film in a theater with his agent, and the scene wasn't there.
At one point in the film Tommy went to visit a prostitute. He had a terrible cold. At the moment of climax he burst into an extended fit of coughing. After he recovered his breath, the prostitute said, "Please, do that again!"
I suppose it was cut for ratings purposes, although the language alone would make it not a "family film." It's not on the DVD, is it?
I heard from some very avid Ford fans about the time the movie came out, that Ford was very unhappy with the way the film was edited. The scene he considered his best was cut from the film without his knowledge, and he was quite disappointed when he saw the film in a theater with his agent, and the scene wasn't there.
At one point in the film Tommy went to visit a prostitute. He had a terrible cold. At the moment of climax he burst into an extended fit of coughing. After he recovered his breath, the prostitute said, "Please, do that again!"
I suppose it was cut for ratings purposes, although the language alone would make it not a "family film." It's not on the DVD, is it?
This is a strange film. I am watching it this very minute, and all I can do is shake my head, and think what a strange film this is. Ford plays this thing almost absolutely straight (except for the horsejump into the river), as if some sort of foil to Wilder, except that Wilder is really not that funny, at least not in the more basic sense. The truly weird thing is, if they had managed to get John Wayne into this film, it would probably be considered a masterpiece of New American Cinema today, so what would that truly say about Harrison Ford? That he's not a memorable cowboy? Not without a blaster and a Wookiee, perhaps.
Towards the end of this film Ford looks more like Sam Houston on his way to fight the Spanish: foppish, jittery, and very uncomfortable. Is Tommy Lillard an ex-dude, trying to superimpose himself upon the Wild West just like Avram? If this is the picture's subtext, that the West really was populated by people like Tommy and Avram, then more about Tommy should have been explained. On the other hand, if the film's overt thesis is that the mythos of the Wild West Gunslinger-with-the-Heart-of-Gold was created by a rogue Rabbi on a moral rampage while on his way to San Francisky, then perhaps Tommy just wasn't mean enough at the film's start. One thing I really liked about Flight Of The Phoenix, an earlier Aldrich film, is how neatly all the little character defects and foibles ultimately determine all the characters' fates; this film is much messier by comparison, and the title character only achieves his goals by the skin of his teeth, and only with the aid of the best efforts of those he has befriended.
One thing is certain here: this is hardly an ideal Western, one a 'dazzling urbanite' like Ford should probably have tried to be in at this stage of his career. One can only wonder how he might have fared in 'Eagle's Wing', or 'Heartland'.
I thought he was terrific in this movie. Great chemistry with Wilder to boot. Between the two of them, this film was transformed from a good movie to a great movie in my opinion.I agree, and this is one of my favorite films of all time (as are a few other Gene Wilder films). share
Ford was terrible and Wilder was too mawkish. Not a great film but a good attempt at a sweet buddy film
Terminate this Thread with extreme prejudice.
Yeah, the naysayers are wrong. I can still think Ford's performances in STAR WARS, EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, WITNESS, and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (and maybe WORKING GIRL) are probably among his very best while still thinking that THE FRISCO KID remains one of Ford's most terrific performances. It truly is a gem of a movie, very under-rated. The final scenes between he and Wilder are absolutely great. I also like Ford's performance in THE FUGITIVE and THE FORCE AWAKENS.
I agree with the poster of this comment: I think his acting was awful in this movie, very amateurish, but no worse than everybody else associated with this turd of a movie! I would blame poor writing, directing, acting (ultimately the directors fault), terrible production values, lighting, editing, let's see what else? I normally like Harrison Ford, but this is a real embarrassment.
shareWilder is perfect as Avram, and his performance is loaded to the teeth with witticisms about Jewishness and what makes a good rabbi. However, the dramatic crux of the movie seems to depend on whomever Tommy Lillard is actually supposed to be. Tommy is constantly thwarted by Avram in attempting to be a conventional gunslinger and outlaw, and his conduct as a friend is constantly being evaluated by a moral and religious code he cannot understand. Ford's performance is on side with the film, but it simply lacks the finesse to be truly engaging. I think Ford would have been better off in a more conventional Western story.
shareI do not think this film is a turd, as true masters of the fecal arts such as Ewe Boll, Pauly Shore, or Michael Bay set a very high bar for overall poopiness, and this just isn't that ambitious a film. It lacks the epic sweep of a 'Yentl' or 'Heaven's Gate (jeez, another western Harrison Ford should have been in)', it lacks the star-studded cast of an 'Inchon' or 'Midway' (two veritable scheissfests, for which, were we in a truly free world, Charleton Heston and Laurence Olivier would surely have gone to the firing squad for their acting), and of course CGI didn't exist in 1979, and other than dynamite, things just didn't really explode in 1850 quite the way they do in wartime, or in films dealing with killer giant robots from another planet.
If Mel Brooks directed this film instead of Robert Aldritch, do you suppose Tommy might have pulled a gun on Avram, only to relent after thinking the act of shooting him might be considered anti-semitic? How kosher is a fish that's been shot through the head? This is not amateurish cinema to inspire such questions, nor does it depend, as a film, on John Ford-esque vistas of a Wild West that barely existed anyways (how is it half of the entire history of the Old West takes place in Monument Valley? This is one busy place, I tell you!).
The main problem with this film is its idiosyncracies, and that, as a revisionist western film, which surely it is, it must somehow appeal more broadly to its audience than a conventional western film. This is why it fails where films like 'Blazing Saddles' and 'Unforgiven' succeed. Only devout jews can truly appreciate Avram Belinski, and only expert cowboys can appreciate Tommy Lillard. This is too small an audience.
I must respectfully disagree, I think in some scenes he's better than in Star Wars, and this character actually has more humanity than Han Solo which is greatly imbued by Ford himself. He has a couple awkward moments, but he also did in SW - "It-is-for-me-sister" was a sub-Shatner delivery, let's face it.
But I would also guess that Ford shows a lot of confidence in SW because he did not feel a lot of pressure, I think he probably felt it might be a fun last hurrah for his acting ambition, and not the huge sensation it was. Lucas is not an actor's director, which has meant, for good and ill as we know, the performers are not under a lot of scrutiny. Now he had regained hope, and the pressure for that next thing to connect was huge. And he had a more scrutinizing director.
-----
Reason is a pursuit, not a conclusion.
Excellent points. I'd much rather watch Harrison Ford here than in any of the "Star Wars" films. Harrison Ford is very good here, but he's constantly upstaged by Gene Wilder. That's not his fault because Wilder is completely in his element here while Ford was still finding his way in comedy.
sharei thought he was good in this
I disagree. I thought he was awesome in this movie! Now keep in mind that his character wasn't the nicest guy in the world but I loved the hardened criminal with a soft spot for this helpless but head strong holy man.
share