Brando Was Putting Everyone On
-
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. -
ash-131 — 18 years ago(July 17, 2007 10:15 PM)
Very well put, elwyn1932. While I'm a fan of Mr. Brando and consider him a genius, I don't believe everything he did in film was brilliant. His performance in The Missouri Breaks, however, made what could otherwise have been a run-of-the-mill, menacing killer for hire role into a humorous yet cold-blooded, memorable, one-of-a-kind character (that doesn't detract from the picture, imo). If that isn't genius
Some people seem to think that Mr. Brando's performance in this movie showed his contempt for the film industry and disrespect for his co-stars, but all I see is someone trying very hard not to be bored. And in the process, he elevated the movie from quaint and forgettable to very entertaining and memorable enough to warrant postings on the imdb message board.
Someone, somewhere posted the address to Jack Nicholson's Rolling Stone article about Marlon Brando after his death, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. But here is an excerpt that shows some insight into Nicholson's thoughts about working with Mr. Brando:
For me, the toughest experience I ever had with Brando came during making The Missouri Breaks together. We talked about doing many projects together over the years, but thats the only time it actually came together. I think Marlon probably had more fun shooting The Missouri Breaks than any movie he did. He liked all the guys in the movie. We were out in Montana. He lived out on the ranch where the movie was shot. He liked being close to nature. He was in his element.
I, on the other hand, was a mess. Somewhere deep in my subconscious was always this idea: One day youre going to be working with Marlon Brando, and you better be ready, Jack.
It started off fine. In our first scene, hes a killer, and Im hiding out from him. Whatever feelings I had of being intimidated seemed to fit this scene. Then one night after that I made a big mistake: I watched some of Brandos dailies. This was a scene where hes sitting there with John McLiam. I watched nine or ten takes of this same scene. Each take was an art film in itself. I sat there stunned by the variety, the depth, the amount of silent articulation of what a scene meant. It was all there. It was one of the wildest things I ever put my eyes on.
The next day I woke up completely destroyed. The full catastrophe of it hit me overnight: Holy beep who do you think you are, Jack? Youre in a movie with Marlon Brando! I was totally annihilated by him. I thought, What if they decide to hang me for being so crazy as to think I could be in the same country with this guy, much less in the same movie? Our director, Arthur Penn, really had to nurse me back to health just to get me to continue on with the picture.
So I mean it when I say that if you cant appreciate Brando, I wouldnt know how to talk to you. If theres anything obvious in life, this is it. Other actors dont go around discussing who is the best actor in the world, because its obvious Marlon Brando is.
(Btw, Nicholson equated Brando to Picasso and wrote, "some people are incapable of not being brilliant." I guess he's one of those fans that can mistake Brando passing gas for genius.) -
dsolgoo-net — 18 years ago(January 14, 2008 12:01 PM)
I agree. In some ways this was the best thing he did because the character was invented from the ground up. You can see that happening and if you like acting you'll appreciate this. The Nightcomers gives a similar memorable performance and with a very similar accent. There's an evil in this that's jocular: a really strange combination. No one was as physical as this guy. Sharing a carrot with your horse!!! Man that takes the cake! This movie really what would it have been without that performance. Sorry, this isn't a mailed in performance. And I'd rather have a scribble by Picasso than hard work by an unimaginative painter too!!!!
-
joekiddlouischama — 18 years ago(January 28, 2008 03:39 AM)
I would agree that Brando's performance marked something of a put-on. It's eccentric and morbidly memorable in its own right (Brando was just that kind of actor), but rather than disciplining his portrayal, I think that he sensed the problems with the script and film and amused himself with tawdry outlandishness instead.
The problem, however, is that Nicholson was playing his part very straight and honestly, so
The Missouri Breaks
becomes uneven, with Brando in one place, the script in another, and Nicholson and director Arthur Penn in yet another. -
Desmond6661312 — 17 years ago(April 18, 2008 04:14 PM)
My problem with Brando is he looked down on acting and if he really felt that way,then be man enough to walk away and stop wasting the time of directors and other actors.Even though they were friends,I read that Nicholson couldn't stand working with Brando because he would show up late and pretty much be a jerk to everyone.
-
edorapietrafesa — 17 years ago(June 21, 2008 11:34 AM)
you had to reign him in (no pun intended). kazan could do that. others didn't know to. and if they didn't, he had contempt for them and went over the top on PURPOSE. he knew this performance especially with the bonnet was a joke and didn't give a sh*t. he got his money and left.
-
ccooterangus — 17 years ago(June 30, 2008 10:23 PM)
This post explains it all. Nicholson admitting that Brando acted circles around him with little effort. Kudos to you, Jack! My opinion of Mr. Nicholson just got a little higher. Thanks for the enlightening post ash131! ps. I liked the film.