Shocking to see Fredric March…
-
MissyH316 — 12 years ago(May 23, 2013 08:57 PM)
Yes, my understanding is that the "real story" was given a punched-up Hollywood treatment all the way around. True stories make for good history, but not always so much for "entertainment". The real townspeople were reportedly very hospitable to Darrow as well as Bryan, for instance.
But OH, Fredric March! He always just immersed himself in whatever character he played and here, the makeup just made him that much more "unrecognizable". He was a great "chameleon" who really "became" his characters. If I didn't know ahead of time who was playing Matthew Harrison Brady here, I don't think I would've realized it WAS Fredric March! (He was also drop-dead handsome too, in my not-so-humble opinion! blush)
Spencer Tracy was a good actor too, but to me, seeing him in nearly any role is like seeing James Stewart in any role: no matter what character they portrayed or what real person they represented in their films, they were still obviously themselves. Their real-life physical appearances and their voices - particularly in Stewart's case - always seemed to overshadow their characters.
"Think slow, act fast."
Buster Keaton -
Doghouse-6 — 12 years ago(May 24, 2013 02:25 PM)
I once read something about Tracy's basic approach to a role (it was some years back, so I'll have to paraphrase).
In playing Dan Haywood, he looked at it as, "This is who Spencer Tracy would be if he were a judge instead of an actor." In playing Matt Drayton, it was, "This is who Spencer Tracy would be if he were a newspaper publisher." As Capt. Culpepper, "This is who I'd be if I were a cop." And so on.
I don't recall ever reading anything about Stewart's approach, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were something similar. In both their cases, they generally seemed to mold the role to fit their individual personas, rather than to adopt another to suit the role. Whatever Stewart's approach, it seemed to work for him, because I never found him anything less than completely credible (which is the simple standard I use for evaluating a performance).
It may represent a minority opinion, but I've always considered the role for which Tracy most aggressively adopted a characterization - in terms of submerging his own persona under different speech, mannerisms and appearance - to be one of his least effective: Manuel in "Captains Courageous." He did so much more successfully, in my view, in "Pat and Mike" (although those alterations in speech and mannerisms were more subtle). Perhaps in that case, it was simply, "This is who I'd be if I were a sports promoter, and had grown up in Brooklyn."
I'm sure I've oversimplified, and I imagine Tracy did too in his description. I'll wager he'd also have taken things like level of education, affluence (or poverty) and other elements of a character's background and experiences into consideration.
There were many actors - Gable and Wayne, for example - who were most successful when molding the character to suit their personalities. Others - like Muni or Hoffman - had great success with the opposite approach. Considering the totality of his work, March seems to have been successful doing some of both.
Poe! You areavenged! -
MissyH316 — 12 years ago(May 24, 2013 10:55 PM)
Oversimplified or not, I think that's a REAL clear, concise description of Tracy's overall approach to his roles.
I've not seen Captains Courageous, but I understand what you're saying. What Tracy did there does sound like how March would've approached it, and for him, it probably would've worked well (or at least better than it did for Tracy).
Yes, certainly each actor had his or her own way of preparing for and playing their roles, and clearly it's not a "one-size-fits-all" thing (whiceh the best ones seems to realize).
Thank you for your post; very interesting and informative.
"Think slow, act fast."
Buster Keaton -
puirt-a-beul — 11 years ago(July 10, 2014 05:19 PM)
Doghouse, I've really enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. They're perceptive and entertaining, and very well written. I do appreciate hearing your point of view, which rings true also for my own impression of the film. Thanks!
My one misgiving of the film is that I feel Kramer (who I greatly admire) hammers his points home a little too fiercely and with too broad-headed a mallet. The drama tends to become something of a shadow-play, despite scenes that add layers to Brady's character, such as the scene where he moderates the preacher's anger or the moving scene towards the end where his wife professes her faith in his honesty and inherent goodness. Much of the rest seems a little too blunt and thickly laid-on for my tastes, and I admire March's skill in keeping it nonetheless emotionally credible.
I have to agree with your comments on Tracy. He's a favourite of mine from the period, but I'm aware it's largely because I find his screen persona so likeable. I think the difference is that Tracy is a personality, while March is what I consider a "real" actor. Though I absolutely enjoy both in this film, I do feel that March had the steeper hill to climb.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment. -
Doghouse-6 — 11 years ago(August 22, 2014 03:03 PM)
First off, I hope you'll forgive me for being so late in thanking you for your remarks and their generous kindness.
And in turn, may I say that I find your evaluation of both Kramer's and March's work in the film bang on (as the Brits say).
In one of my earlier comments, I volunteered that I wasn't such a fan of March's pre-war work, but since then, I've had the opportunity to catch some of it that I'd missed, as well as to take a second look at some others of his films I'd already seen. Those opportunities have brought about something of a reevaluation; I detected skillful nuances to which I'd not been exposed earlier, or that had escaped me initially.
Although I remain most appreciative of his work from, say,
The Best Years Of Our Lives
on, my regard for his craftsmanship overall has only grown since I first jumped onto this thread.
Poe! You areavenged! -
bebop63-1 — 15 years ago(August 03, 2010 02:12 AM)
It looked to me more like a make-up job to make him closely resemble William Jennings Bryan, the real life person on whom March's character was based on. Check out the photograph of Bryan with Clarence Darrow (who was the defending lawyer in the case) in Scopes Monkey Trial entry in wikipedia.org and see for yourself.
-
Edward_de_Vere — 14 years ago(August 24, 2011 08:32 AM)
Those used to March's youthful leading man roles would be even more surprised at his last film appearance, as the senile, drunken barkeep Harry Hope in Lumet's adaptation of Eugene O'Neill's
The Iceman Cometh
.
March is the one wearing the hat:
http://www.fandor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/iceman-cometh-ma rch-ryan.jpeg