was mitchum considered one of the greats?
-
cjbussey81 — 12 years ago(January 08, 2014 01:45 AM)
Spot on. Really good acting is about being grounded in yourself and finding those little human moments that ring true for you and the audience watching you. Sanford Meisner boiled his entire approach to teaching acting down to "living truthfully under imaginary circumstances."
In other words, behave the way you would behave as a real human being according to what's going on in the script. Really fine acting looks so easy that any casual viewer believes that there's nothing to it, but that couldn't be further from the truth. It takes a great deal of self-confidence and courage to just stand there and be a person, resisting the temptation to "act" and be false. To get there you have to do a lot of preparation, absorbing the script and becoming one with the character you're playing.
Film actors of Mitchum's generation were often natural talents with little or no training. Instinct and experience made them great, though they were eventually eclipsed by the next generation's combination of natural ability and serious, in-depth training in the Method and other parallel approaches.
"Beethoven had his critics too, Keith. See if you can name three of 'em." -
franzkabuki — 12 years ago(January 31, 2014 06:53 AM)
"Like Clint Eastwood always plays himself?"
Eastwood had indeed a very narrow range of characters he could portray - good or bad, they always shared a lot of the same basic characteristics. Mitchum`s incomparably more diverse and subtle than Eastwood could ever dream of being.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
emuir-1 — 12 years ago(June 25, 2013 01:14 PM)
Hollywood Tinseltown stardom tends to cloud the fact that some 'stars' are really great actors and consequently they are underrated. Mitchum was one of those. He had the rare quality of appealing to both men and women. Men wanted to be him, women wanted to be his. As the Hollywood studio system waned, Mitchum turned to TV miniseries, like Winds of War, and showed that he still had what it takes. Was he great? You betcha.
-
johnnyb10 — 12 years ago(December 23, 2013 09:41 AM)
After Robert Mitchum died, I saw an interview with his son.
It appears that R.M. got old & was told by his doctor that he had to stop drinking & smoking. He died in his sleep one night & his son was called to his home. When he got there, he found, next the R.M.'s favorite chair, an empty shot glass & a cigerette butt in an ash tray. He said his father probably couldn't sleep, so he got up, had a shot of bourbon & a smoke & went back to bed, where he quietly passed away. It seems he died on his own terms, which was the way he always lived. -
thbryn — 11 years ago(September 03, 2014 11:11 PM)
Look I like Mitchum, thought he was fantastic in some roles but he also had problems. I thought he did a lot of stuff for the money and didn't really apply max effort.
So I don't think he's really considered one of the greats even though he undoubtedly was
one of the greats.
Obviously he was nowhere near the star of a Duke Wayne but Wayne couldn't possibly have done some of the content Mitchum did.
Mitchum also had a big mouth which may (or may not) have been a put-on IDK? He said lots of things I didn't like but one remark in particular, putting down Alan Ladd I've never really forgiven him for. Ladd had a great career without being a great talent he was more of movie star presence. Maybe Mitchum had hit a roadblock in his work and lashed out at this pint-sized guy with the deep voice and trench coat.
Kiss
kiss,
Bang
bang -
PussyCrusher_Principal — 11 years ago(October 08, 2014 12:00 PM)
Let me add something to what I said before (I was the first responder to the Op), as someone said "supposed range", which I guess was meant to mean he had none. First, I don't claim to know all about the history of film, but when speaking of range, I'm of the opinion that women's roles are written with greater range, in general, allowing for the perception that women are more emotional than men. So I think because people never saw Mitchum cry it means he had no range. Go watch The lusty Men. I won't lay a long list on you, but watch that one. If you think it's the "same old Mithcun role, playing himself", just give up because you won't get it.
And as fr as him just playing himself, Bogart said that, as a compliment, about Spenser Tracy, and he said "if you think that's easy, just try it". -
Eddie_Fingers — 11 years ago(February 16, 2015 02:39 PM)
He's definitely one of the greats. Check out The Story of G.I. Joe, Crossfire, Out of the Past, The Night of the Hunter, and Cape Fear (the original, not the Scorsese remake).
"This life's hard, man, but it's harder if you're stupid!" -
Balthazar Bee — 10 years ago(May 07, 2015 11:20 AM)
This question has already been thoroughly answered, but for those of us who appreciate his greatness, it's hard not to get excited about Robert Mitchum. Any chance to talk about himit's hard to turn down.
Yes, I'd say he's one of the greats. The work naturally speaks for itself (and Coyle is probably my favourite autumnal performance of Mitchum's) and when he's got a decent script and a competent director, there's few who can touch him for natural charisma.
But more than that, Mitchum (as little as he claimed to care about such things) seemed to always give credence to the inner life of his characters. Something about the way he'd say his lines it was like he was always holding something back, and that gave him power. The audience could sense it.
It doesn't hurt that he's got an incredible baritone voice, imposing frame and incredible physical grace.
Take his part in El Dorado. I can't remember if it was Bogdonovich or David Thomson, but one of them pointed out something telling about his first scene. He's got better moments in the film (like this one:
), and he's given an ungodly amount of expository dialogue to spew at John Wayne yet he's totally captivating. He rushes through the words without seeming to. It's not an easy scene, but it sure is easy to watch.
Who else could make a scene like that fly? Any other actor in that part would be "the guy who's in the scene with John Wayne and brings him up to speed". But it's Mitchum we're interested in, rather than Duke.
Mitchum's career is filled with little cinematic miracles like that. There are few actors that I can authentically claim I'd "watch in anything". I'd watch Robert Mitchum in
anything
. -
emncaity — 9 years ago(January 29, 2017 10:12 PM)
I'll just lift this handy summary of Mitchum straight from the incomparable Roger Ebert's review of the film:
"He has always been one of our best screen actors: sardonic, masculine, quick-witted, but slow to reveal himself. He has never been in an absolutely great film; he doesnt have masterpieces behind him like Brando or Cary Grant. More than half his films have been conventional action melodramas, and it is a rare summer without at least one movie in which Mitchum wears a sombrero and lights bombs with his cigar. But give him a character and the room to develop it, and what he does is wonderful. Eddie Coyle is made for him: a weary middle-aged man, but tough and proud; a man who has been hurt too often in life not to respect pain; a man who will take chances to protect his own territory."
Thanks once again, Roger.