Brando Was Putting Everyone On
-
lukejbarnett — 5 years ago(January 10, 2021 10:57 AM)
what about lee strasberg? by the way you can't learn what brando had. his instincts, skills, talents, and way of getting into character and inhabiting a character is not learnable from any acting school or class.
lukejbarnett -
Bob_Zerunkel — 17 years ago(September 19, 2008 04:05 PM)
One person who was not a fan of Brando was Arthur Penn. Penn found Brando "thrilling" in the same way that petulant teenage rebellion could be found thrilling. In truth, Penn would have replaced Brando if he could. He had a slew of fine actors on this film, but he also had Brando. Brando almost destroyed the film.
Brando had a pattern of uncooperative behavior. Penn tried to direct Brando, but Brando refused. Personally, I would have liked to have seen this movie done professionally.
It's not just that Brando was hard to work with. Brando refused to take direction at all. He would blow his lines. They would have a retake. He would blow them again on purpose. Eventually, Penn gave in and let the old fool do whatever he wanted.
That was Brando.
If your idea of a fine actor is somebody who does whatever he wants, then Brando was tops. But if you believe that acting takes skill, then thousands of actors tower over Brando.
In short, I, and millions of others, believe that Brando's popularity is due to his personality, rather than his acting skills. When you hired him, you hired him to act as Brando. Brando was a minor thug in real life, and essentially, always played a thug of one kind or another. That is the real Brando that you see on the screen. It just isn't acting. -
Bob_Zerunkel — 14 years ago(January 21, 2012 12:26 PM)
Geeze, fella. I've seen people fight tooth and nail and then "talk fondly" of each other.
I remember when my next-door neighbor was out on the porch screaming that he loved his wife.
The cops still asked him to put down his gun. -
Bob_Zerunkel — 14 years ago(March 10, 2012 03:43 PM)
Look, buddy, I love the Three Stooges movies, and I would choose them over Brando every time. That doesn't mean that I think they are great actors. I just like their movies.
You like Brando. Great.
But why defend his acting if you believe that "even when he phones it in, or beep around, it's something to talk about"? That's not a sign that you like his acting. You just like his personality. -
brucedgo — 12 years ago(September 26, 2013 09:25 PM)
That's not a sign that you like his acting. You just like his personality.
What an odd thing to say. I for one don't know anything about his personality. Never met him. I loved his acting in this film.
and the rocks it pummels.- James Berardinelli
-
lukejbarnett — 5 years ago(January 10, 2021 11:05 AM)
skill has nothing to do with one of the things brando does and that's the genius. he is the characters he plays. you don't always need to use skill to act. it can be instinctive. you don't have to follow "rules" or procedures when acting in a movie.
you're wrong, actors who use skill better than brando have never existed.
you have a very limited capacity and experience in watching movies and acting.
lukejbarnett -
-
Edward_de_Vere — 18 years ago(August 04, 2007 01:31 PM)
Just because a performance is over the top, hammy, and unrealistic doesn't mean that there isn't real talent and skill involved. Scenery chewing is fine, as long as it's intentional and the end result leaves an impression and entertains. I can think of some other scenery chewing parts that I love to watch: try Jack Nicholson in "The Shining," Robert Duvall in "The Lightship," or Nicol Williamson as Merlin in "Excalibur." All hammy, and all great.
Furthermore, I wouldn't seve say that Brando's performance as Robert E. Lee Clayton in "Missouri Breaks" was that much more over the top than as his Col. Kurtz in "Apocalypse Now" or many other roles where he gets high praise. The point is, he still leaves an impression, unlike so many of today's lackluster "superstars." -
Wuchakk — 13 years ago(February 15, 2013 02:47 AM)
Re: "Brando was also a self-indulgent fool who became convinced that EVERYTHING he did was genius. He was wrong, and this film shows it."
If that's true then why does the viewer's attention perk up every time Brando's oddball character, Lee Clayton, appears on screen? This was one of Brando's most interesting roles, a fearless, intimidating outcast who made his living killing rustlers. He was a loner who didn't care about money and, actually, WANTED to be put out of his misery (as the bubble bath scene shows).
But Brando fumbled the ball sometimes, like his performance as a big oil tycoon in "The Formula," which came off as more of a performance than a real person. Still, he was entertaining and that's the name of the game.