Dissing George Reeves – Unjustified
-
aerialporter1985 — 19 years ago(September 09, 2006 04:28 PM)
I also noticed that when reviewing "Hollywoodland," critics would refer to Reeves as a mediocre actor. I agree with all of you that this is clearly not true. I've seen his scenes with Burt Lancaster in "From Here to Eternity," and I was impressed. It was a small supporting role, but an important one to the development of the First Sergeant's affair with the Captain's wife, and I thought he pulled it off admirably. Reeves held his own with Burt Lancaster, who was at the top of his game in that movie, so you have to give him credit.
A lot of the other threads here refer to Reeves as the best Superman ever, and I have to agree. On top of that, I also think that he was the best Clark Kent; too many actors play Kent as a wimp who just fills up space until Superman is needed. Reeves, however, played Kent as a bit of a cynical smart-aleck who was much more able to express his true feelings about Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen and Perry White than Superman ever could. While Superman's adventures may have been for the kids, I used to watch the show on Nick-At-Nite just to catch Clark Kent's barbed remarks toward his co-workers, and marvel at how he got away with it. I was always entertained. Does anyone feel the same way about Reeves' portrayal of Clark Kent? -
captain-video — 18 years ago(November 26, 2007 11:47 AM)
I'm another fan that believes George Reeves played Clark Kent and Superman the absolute best.
I also believe George Reeves was a very good actor who did not get a chance in Hollywood to fully display the depths of his acting ability. -
jodofu — 13 years ago(February 20, 2013 08:23 AM)
Yes, I agree with the assessment of George Reeves' portrayal of Clark Kent. I often make that point when discussing the screen Superman with many young people. His Clark Kent is not a one-dimensional milquetoast. Reeves brought a warm quality to his portrayal of Kent and Superman.
-
geohaber-1 — 19 years ago(September 10, 2006 11:49 AM)
I agree that Reeves was a VERY good actor and his portrayal of Clark Kent continues to be the most charismatic of any of the other actors, before or since.
I grew up watching Superman and now I have the DVDs. He was not particularly proud of playing Superman, but he did it well, and if he had lived he certainly would have been an honored guest at film and comic conventions. It seems like the police and the District Attorney in Los Angeles, really let him down. He deserved more than the cover-up they perpetrated.
I saw Hollywoodland yesterday. I read the book Hollywood Kryptonite about 10 years ago. The book comes down more and the side hof Reeves being murdered. The movie hedges its bets.
George Haberberger -
LaurieMann — 19 years ago(September 10, 2006 03:18 PM)
George Reeves never really impressed me as an actor. True, he was charming, and true his Clark Kent tended to be played (and written) a little sharper than the more modern versions of Kent have been. Still, he probably could have been snapped up by a soap opera and played a charming man until he was quite old if he had wanted to go in that direction. He didn't.
Hollywoodland Spoilers*
I saw the movie today, and am convinced that the movie points, ultimately, to suicide.
In movies were "multiple versions" of a situation are shown, the last version tends to be "the truth." In Hollywoodland, the investigator (Simo) imagines how different people could have murdered George Reeves. However, ultimately, none of them make sense. Leora (sic? - the "fiance") was unstable but didn't seem the murdering type. Neither did the Mannixes - both were well-aware of their spouses' infidelity and Edgar did what he could to avoid open scandals (particularly as he had skeletons in his closet).
The last thing that Simo sees is that really pathetic film of an injured, unemployed, 45-year-old George Reeves trying to take stuntman falls without grimmacing. And the last version of Reeves' death he imagines is one where George Reeves seems very tired, very depressed and just picks up the gun and shoots himself. Ultimately, the movie agrees with the police report.
Laurie Mann
Dead People Server
http://www.deadpeople.info -
missmarie1971 — 19 years ago(September 12, 2006 09:30 PM)
I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that. The way he was shot, he would have had to have been standing on his head to do it. And Mrs Mannix's behavior just before he died "oh, he's gonna shoot himself now. oh, he's getting out his gun. Well, he shot himself."
How did she know he did it? The police were inempt cause too many powerful people were involved and the movie is probably nothing but whitewash bull. No one stands on their head to shoot themselves.
I believe he was murdered, and I believe Mrs Mannix had something to do with it, after all, she was the sole beneficiary of his will. She got everything. -
LaurieMann — 19 years ago(September 13, 2006 03:06 AM)
Yeah, while she might have gotten everything, but George Reeves wasn't particularly wealthy. The movie made it very clear that the Mannixes were very wealthy. And she bought George that house in the first place.
I concur she came off as something of a stalker, but
Laurie Mann
Dead People Server
http://www.deadpeople.info -
wgranger — 11 years ago(June 27, 2014 06:10 PM)
I always thought it was suspicious until I saw an Unsolved Mysteries segment where it showed him with the gun upside down. So he was not standing on his head: the gun was upside down. That accounted for the unusual distribution of the bullet casings.
Here's something maybe you guys can answer: why does everything list his place of death as Beverly Hills when he died in the Hollywood Hills?
PS I think he was the best Superman ever. He had already committed suicide when I saw the series in the 60s. Could he have killed himself because there was such a disparity between his squeeky clean on-stage persona and his sordid personal life? Who knows? -
gw166 — 19 years ago(September 10, 2006 10:49 PM)
The personal attacks on George are really disgraceful. What is worse, is that some of them come from nationally known writers, who should know better. The things that they are writing are both mean-spirited, and show ignorance about his career prior to Superman, as well as a lack of perspective on how much impact he had on others. The fact that we are even talking about George Reeves in 2006 means something.
Prior to WW II, George was an up and coming actor of some promise. Besides "So Proudly We Hail", he had good supporting roles in a number of "A" films. There is a scene with Merle Oberon in "Lydia" where he played a suitor who was drunk and abusive. How anyone could watch im in that and think he couldn't act is beyond me. He was very capable, and certainly as good or better than some actors of his era who became bigger stars.
I saw Hollywoodland today, and while honest about his human failings, the movie does not denegrate George. The personal attacks by some reviewers have nothing to do with the content of the movie. It was a very good film.
The so called film gurus who are ripping George Reeves should do a little research. -
ecarle — 19 years ago(September 12, 2006 09:55 AM)
It has been reported that George Reeves was booked to play the private eye Arbogast in Hitchcock's 111c"Psycho" around the time of his death in 1959. The film was released in 1960, with Martin Balsam in the role.
If true (is this covered in "Hollywood Kryptonite"?), this would certainly prove that a major director felt that George Reeves could act.
If you've seen "Psycho," you know that the detective is a fairly sly and sharp character. George Reeves did bring some of that slyness to his work as Clark Kent. He might well have been fine in this role (though, the detective does get horribly murdered.)
Think of it: had George Reeves not died young, and had been in the very "adult" "Psycho" (which was a BIG hit in 1960), his whole career might have changed. Superman behind him, he could have played character parts and leads in the 60's and beyond. -
JimB-4 — 19 years ago(September 12, 2006 03:48 PM)
Rumor has it that in mid-1959, Reeves was approached to play the doomed detective Milton Arbogast in Alfred Hitchcock's newest picture, Psycho, and that Reeves actually filmed a few of his scenes with the rest of the cast, just a week before his death. This rumor is absolutely false. Psycho did not begin filming until November, 1959, five months after Reeves's death. (See Donald Spoto's "The Dark Side of Genius: The Life of Alfred Hitchcock," pp. 417-418.) Indeed, the script for "Psycho" was not written until four months after Reeves's death. For the entire spring and summer of 1959, Alfred Hitchcock was editing and promoting his previous film and preparing a new film which was never made.
-
bluesman-20 — 19 years ago(April 01, 2007 10:38 AM)
George Reeves could act and in fact he was rated as a star after so proudly we hail. However the war came along and when it ended public perception changed in terms of what kind of actors they wanted. Marlon Brando and James Dean And Robert Mitchum as well as John Wayne fit the bills for the types of actors they wanted to see. George Reeves acting could never really be said to fall into any of those catogaories. He was old school cool the public wanted new school cool.
Sad but true. He did however reach the ranks of the immortals as Superman. -
schappe1 — 19 years ago(September 18, 2006 08:04 PM)
And I agree that he's the best Superman. He has a melodious voice that conveyed both authority and gentleness, (as did Clayton Moore and William Boyd, big reasons why the small fry- like me- went crazy for them). He had a gravitas that really comes through and I agree that his perforance as Clark Kent was the key to stories. The show would haven cancelled in weeks if some beekcake was hired for the role who had to read off of idiot cards. No one wuld remember it now. He looks good and sounds good and acts well in the many movie roles he had over the years. He deserved better.
-
daveburd — 19 years ago(September 22, 2006 05:40 AM)
I've been watching the TV series on DVD (I'm halfway into the 3rd season) and I'm surprised at what a good actor Reeves was.
There are many ways to judge acting ability (charisma being one of them) but most people focus on versatility. Therefore Lawrence Olivier is a great actor because he could play so many different types of roles whereas Humphrey Bogart is not a great actor since he almost always plays Bogie. I disagree.
To me, the rule of thumb is believability. If the actor can convince you that he is who he's supposed to be, that's good acting. (As an aside, Ben Affleck never convinced me he was George Reeves; I kept seeing Ben Affleck).
George Reeves plays a very convincing Superman. And, most remarkably, he does it mostly with his voice and the way he carries himself. Heck, I could play Superman today, if I had an army of special effects technicians to give me super powers (and make me a foot taller, take off 20 pounds, fill in my bald spot, etc.) Reeves gave a convincing performance with nothing more than a costume and his acting ability. When the crooks shoot at him and the bullets bounce off, no attempt is made to show the bullets (as they did in Superman Returns). There is the richochet sound effect, and George Reeves' posture, standing defiantly with his hands of his hips. That's it!
Even as an adult watching these shows 50 years after they were made, I still believe George Reeves is Superman.
Interestingly, the tag line for the Christopher Reeve Superman film was "you will believe a man can fly." But it was the state-of-the-art special effects that pulled off the illusion. I believe the TV Superman can fly because of the performance by G5b4eorge Reeves.